Source: http://mt.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180418_0001864.DMT.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 14:58:47+00:00

Document:
This case comes before the Court on Petitioner Charles Miesmer's application for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §2254, filed January 31, 2018. Miesmer is a state prisoner proceeding pro se.
Miesmer was one of a group of petitioners that joined in filing what they characterized as an “En Masse Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus as per 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and Rule 20(a) and Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” (Doc. 2). The “en masse” petitioners sought to challenge the constitutionality of the criminal charging process utilized against them by the State of Montana. Id. at 34. Miesmer, and the additional petitioners, were notified that the Court would allow them to proceed as a group and that separate cases would be opened for each. (Doc. 1 at 2-5). Petitioners were then ordered to respond individually to advise the Court whether or not they wished to proceed and, if so, petitioners were directed to each complete the Court's standard habeas form. Id. at 5-6. Miesmer did not respond to this Court's order.
Miesmer has moved this Court to be granted in forma pauperis status. (Doc. 3). Because there is no reason to delay this matter further, Miesmer's motion will be GRANTED.
In a Supplement to his Petition, Miesmer asks this Court to dismiss a Sexual Assault conviction handed down in Montana's Eighth Judicial District Court, Cascade County, in Cause No. BDC-13-556. (Doc. 4 at 1). The argument is premised upon what Miesmer believes to be a faulty and unconstitutional state criminal charging process utilized in felony prosecutions. Id. Miesmer contends he was entitled to be prosecuted either following the empaneling of a grand jury or a preliminary probable cause hearing. Id.
But this Court is not able to provide Miesmer the relief sought. Federal district courts, as courts of original jurisdiction, do not serve as appellate tribunals to review errors allegedly committed by state courts. MacKay v. Pfeil, 827 F.2d 540, 543 (9th Cir. 1987); see also Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, 398 U.S. 281, 296 (1970)(“lower federal courts possess no power whatever to sit in direct review of state court decisions”). It would be entirely inappropriate for this Court to review and dismiss the state convictions as suggested by Miesmer. To the extent that the Supplement (Doc. 4) is construed as a Motion to Dismiss, the motion is DENIED.
As noted, Miesmer has not filed an individual petition for habeas corpus relief as directed. And as stated in this Court's prior order of February 6, 2018, Miesmer is precluded from filing his request for habeas relief en masse with other petitioners. (Doc. 1 at 2-6). Dismissal on that ground is appropriate. See Stewart v. Martinez-Villareal, 523 U.S. 637, 645 (1998)(explaining that dismissal for technical procedural reasons should not bar prisoners from ever obtaining federal habeas review)(citing United States ex rel. Barnes v. Gilmore, 968 F.Supp 384, 385 ( N.C. Ill. 1997) and Marsh v. U.S. Dist. Court for Northern Dist. of California, 1995 WL 23942 at *1 (N.D. Ca. 1995)). Recognizing that courts generally treat pro se habeas petitioners leniently, the dismissal should be without prejudice. Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375, 377 (2003); Woods v. Carey, 525 F.3d 886, 889-90 (9th Cir. 2008).

References: §2254
 § 2254
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.