The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lowell A. Reed, Jr., S.J.
AND NOW, this 3rd day of November, 2010, upon consideration of the presumptive pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 3) presumably filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 by Melton Werts ("Werts"), the court makes the following findings and conclusions:
1. On September 21, 2010, Werts, an individual currently incarcerated at the House of Correction in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, filed a form of petition for release from custody pursuant to § 2254 along with an application to proceed in forma pauperis.*fn1
2. Werts' habeas petition form was filed pro se; therefore, it should be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972); Giles v. Kearney, 571 F.3d 318, 322 (3d Cir. 2009). Construing the petition liberally, this court concludes that Werts fails to present any claim upon which this court may grant relief. Indeed, his claims are factually and legally unintelligible.*fn2
Moreover, it is not apparent that Werts is even seeking habeas relief because he fails to delineate a specific constitutional violation stemming from his incarceration pursuant to a state court conviction.*fn3 Accordingly, because this petition presents no arguable legal issue, I will dismiss it without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 cases in the United States District Courts. 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254.*fn4
Based upon the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. Werts' apparent Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus and motion to proceed in forma pauperis are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and
2. The Clerk of Court shall notify Petitioner and Respondent of the action of this Court, seeRule 4, ...