Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Buggs v. State Officials

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA


June 4, 2009

JOHN BUGGS
v.
STATE OFFICIALS, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Ludwig, J.

MEMORANDUM

On May 27, 2009, petitioner John Buggs filed a "Nunc Pro Tunc Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis." In doing so, petitioner is attempting to appeal the judgment of a state court and attack a state court conviction. Since federal courts do not have jurisdiction to review the determination of a state court, this action must be dismissed.

Petitioner's proper remedy to attack a state court conviction is to file a petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 662 , 116 S.Ct. 2333, 2339 (1996) ("authority to grant habeas corpus relief to state prisoners is limited by 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which specifies the conditions under which such relief may be granted to a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court."). This court has jurisdiction to review petitions for habeas corpus relief. Habeas corpus relief is available to assure that individuals are not incarcerated in violation of the United States Constitution. See Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390, 400, 113 S.Ct. 853, 860 (1993).

In the event that petitioner decides to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus relief, he must do so utilizing this court's current standard form as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

See E.D. Pa. R. Civ. P. 9.3, Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the United Stated District Court Rule 2(d). This standard form gives petitioners specific warnings at the commencement of a § 2254 case, as directed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. See United States v. Thomas, 221 F.3d 430, 437 n.6 (3d Cir. 2000) (relating to the need to plead facts sufficient to support his or her claims, and the strict and short statute of limitations for filing a petition or habeas corpus relief); Mason v. Meyers, 208 F.3d 414, 418-19 (3d Cir. 2000) (relating to the restrictions on a district court's ability to consider "second or successive" § 2254 petitions). Moreover, to file a petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, petitioners must either pay the $5filing fee or file an application to proceed in forma pauperis.

Accordingly, petitioner's motion must be dismissed.

Edmund V. Ludwig, J.

20090604

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.