United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Waycross Division
ORDER AND MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND
STAN BAKER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Tampia Musengeni (“Musengeni”), an inmate at the
Broward Transitional Center in Pompano Beach, Florida, filed
a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241. (Doc. 1.) I have conducted a preliminary review
of Musengeni's claims, as required by Rule 4 of the Rules
Governing Section 2254 Cases. For the reasons which follow, the
Court DENIES Musengeni's Motion for
Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. (Doc. 2.) For
these same reasons, I RECOMMEND that the
Court DISMISS Musengeni's Petition and
DIRECT the Clerk of Court enter the
appropriate judgment of dismissal to CLOSE
this . I also RECOMMEND the Court
DENY Musengeni in forma pauperis
status on appeal.
Petition, Musengeni states that he is currently detained at
Broward Transitional Center on state charges and an
immigration detainer. (Doc. 1, p. 1.) However, he provides no
other information whatsoever. (Id. at pp. 1-9.) He
does not state any grounds challenging his detention or any
relief that he seeks for the Court to impose. (Id.
at pp. 6-9.) Though the form Musengeni used to file his
Petition requested this information, he left all pertinent
questions blank. (Id.) Musengeni does not enlighten
the Court as to his claims in any of his other pleadings.
to Rule 4 of the Rules governing petitions brought under 28
U.S.C. § 2254:
The clerk must promptly forward the petition to a judge . .
., and the judge must promptly examine [the petition]. If it
plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits
that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district
court, the judge must dismiss the petition and direct the
clerk to notify the petitioner.
Rule 2(c), “[h]abeas corpus petitions must meet
heightened pleading requirements.” McFarland v.
Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994) (citing 28 U.S.C. §
2254 Rule 2(c)). While pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 8(a), complaints in a civil case must contain only
“a short and plain statement of the claim showing that
the pleader is entitled to relief, ” petitions for
habeas corpus must “specify all the grounds for relief
available to the petitioner” and “state the facts
supporting each ground.” Rule 2 of Rules Governing
Section 2254 Cases. In other words, habeas petitions must
contain “fact pleading as opposed to notice
pleading.” Hittson v. GDCP Warden,
759 F.3d 1210, 1265 (11th Cir. 2014) (internal quotations and
citations omitted). “To properly fact plead, ‘a
petitioner must state specific, particularized facts which
entitle him or her to habeas corpus relief for each ground
specified. These facts must consist of sufficient detail to
enable the court to determine, from the face of the petition
alone, whether the petition merits further habeas corpus
review.'” Arrington v. Warden, GDCP, No.
CV 117-022, 2017 WL 4079405, at *2 (S.D. Ga. Sept. 14, 2017)
(quoting Adams v. Armontrout, 897 F.2d 332, 334 (8th
Cir. 1990)). Therefore, a habeas petitioner cannot merely
levy conclusory allegations but must support his claims with
specific factual detail. Id. (citing James v.
Borg, 24 F.3d 20, 26 (9th Cir. 1994)).
Whether the Petition Consists of Sufficient Detail to
Demonstrate that Musengeni is Entitled to Relief
state above, Musengeni essentially left the form for filing a
Section 2241 Petition entirely blank. Other than his place of
detention, he does not provide any information whatsoever,
much less “specify all the grounds for relief available
to the petitioner” and “state the facts
supporting each ground.” Rule 2 of Rules Governing
Section 2254 Cases. In some instances, the Court will direct
a habeas petitioner to amend his petition to more
specifically state his claims. However, in this case,
Musengeni is not incarcerated in this District. Where a
Section 2241 petitioner challenges his present confinement,
“jurisdiction lies” only in “the district
of confinement, ” and the proper respondent is the
warden of the facility where the petitioner is being held,
not the United States or a supervisory official who exercises
“legal control” over the petitioner. See
Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 435, 439-40, 443
(2000). Here, Petitioner is no longer confined in this
District but rather at the Broward Transitional Center in
Pompano Beach, Florida, which lies in the Southern District
of Florida. 28 U.S.C. § 89(c). Consequently, this Court
has no jurisdiction over the instant petition.
for all of these reasons, it plainly appears that Musengeni
is not entitled to relief in this District. Thus, the Court
DENIES his Motion to Proceed in Forma
Pauperis, and I RECOMMEND that the
Court DISMISS Musengeni's Section 2241
Leave to Appeal in Forma Pauperis
Court should also deny Musengeni leave to appeal in forma
pauperis. Though Musengeni has, of course, not yet filed
a notice of appeal, it would be appropriate to address these
issues in the Court's order of dismissal. Fed. R. App. P.
24(a)(3) (trial court may certify that appeal of party
proceeding in forma pauperis is not taken in good
faith “before or after the notice of appeal is
filed”). An appeal cannot be taken in forma
pauperis if the trial court certifies that the appeal is
not taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Fed. R.
App. P. 24(a)(3). Good faith in this context must be judged
by an objective standard. Busch v. County of
Volusia, 189 F.R.D. 687, 691 (M.D. Fla. 1999). A party
does not proceed in good faith when he seeks to advance a
frivolous claim or argument. See Coppedge v. United
States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). A claim or argument is
frivolous when it appears the factual allegations are clearly
baseless or the legal theories are indisputably meritless.
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989);
Carroll v. Gross, 984 F.2d 392, 393 (11th Cir.
1993). An in forma pauperis action is frivolous, and
thus not brought in good faith, if it is “without
arguable merit either in law or fact.” Napier v.
Preslicka, 314 F.3d 528, 531 (11th Cir. 2002); see
also Brown v. United States, Nos. 407CV085, 403CR001,
2009 WL 307872, at *1-2 (S.D. Ga. Feb. 9, 2009).
on the above analysis of Musengeni's Petition, there are
no non-frivolous issues to raise on appeal, and an appeal
would not be taken in good faith. Thus, the Court should