Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Kendall v. Director of Buffalo Federal Detention Facility

United States District Court, W.D. New York

June 14, 2017

DR. CYRIL N. KENDALL, The World's Most Suigeneris Man, Petitioner,
v.
DIRECTOR OF BUFFALO FEDERAL DETENTION FACILITY, U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT (ICE), Respondent.

          DECISION AND ORDER

          ELIZABETH.A WOLFORD United States District Judge.

         INTRODUCTION

         Petitioner, Dr. Cyril N. Kendall, is a civil immigration detainee currently detained at the Buffalo Federal Detention Facility. Subject to a final order of removal, Petitioner, in a rather confusing and illogical pro se Petition, claims that he is in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody in violation of his constitutional rights, as more particularly described in the Petition, and seeks relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2241. (Dkt. 1). Petitioner has also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. 2), as well as a motion seeking to stay his removal (Dkt. 3).

         DISCUSSION

         I. Motion for Stay of Removal

         Petitioner's motion for a stay of his removal is denied on the basis that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain such a request. See, e.g., Scott v. Napolitano, 618 F. Supp, 2d 186, 190 (E.D.N.Y. 2009); Al-Garidi v. Holder, No. 09-CV-6160 (DGL), 2009 WL 1439216, at *1 (W.D.N.Y. May 15, 2009); Morillo v. DHS & Bice Del Or., No. 06-CV-340 (NAM)(DEP), 2006 WL 1007645, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. April 17, 2006).

         Similarly, to the extent the Petition can be liberally construed to raise a challenge to the final order of removal, this Court also lacks jurisdiction to entertain such a challenge. See, e.g., De Ping Wang v. Dep't of Homeland Sec, 484 F.3d 615, 615-16 (2d Cir. 2007); Aime v. Dep 7 of Homeland Sec, No. 05-CV-0544 (RJA), 2005 WL 1971894, *1 (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 16, 2005). The appropriate mechanism and forum for such a challenge is the filing of a petition for review with the appropriate United States Court of Appeals within 30 days after the date of the final order of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5), (b)(1).

         II. Motion To Proceed In Forma Pauperis

         The Court therefore has jurisdiction to review only Petitioner's challenge to his current detention pending removal. See Denis v. DHS/ICE of Buffalo, New York, 634 F.Supp.2d 338, 340 n.l (W.D.N.Y. 2009).

A court, justice or judge entertaining an application for a writ of habeas corpus shall forthwith award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.

28 U.S.C. § 2243. "Under this provision the District Court has a duty to screen out a habeas corpus petition which should be dismissed for lack of merit on its face." Allen v. Perini, 424 F.2d 134, 141 (6th Cir. 1970), cert, denied, 400 U.S. 906. "The Advisory Committee Notes accompanying Rule 4 explain that under [28 U.S.C] § 2243 it is the duty of the court to screen out frivolous applications and eliminate the burden that would be placed on the respondent by ordering an unnecessary answer." Welch v. Mukasey, 589 F.Supp.2d 178, 180 (N.D.N.Y. 2008) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see Garcia v. Dep't of Homeland Sec, No. 10-CV-246 (MAT), 2010 WL 1630412, at *1 (W.D.N.Y. Apr. 21, 2010) (dismissing a habeas petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241), aff'd, 422 F.App'x 7 (2d Cir. 2011); see also Riser v. Johnson, 163 F.3d 326, 328 (5th Cir. 1999).

         "Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts (the 'Habeas Rules'), requires a petitioner to, '(1) specify all the grounds for relief available to the petitioner; [and] (2) state the facts supporting each ground[.]'" McNally v. O'Flynn, No. 10-Civ-00921 (MAT), 2012 WL 3230439, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 6, 2012). "[A] habeas claim may be summarily dismissed where the allegations are 'vague, conclusory, or palpably incredible.'" Morgan v. Lee, No. 11-Civ-0390 (MAT), 2012 WL 5336167, at *9 (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 26, 2012) (quoting Dory v. Comm'r of Corr. of State of N.Y., 865 F.2d 44, 45 (2d Cir. 1989)).

         The instant Petition's allegations are barely coherent. Petitioner appears to claim that he is being held in violation of his constitutional rights on the ground that his prior conviction was unlawfully, fraudulently, or otherwise improperly obtained. (Dkt. 1 at 6-7). It is not at all clear as to why this could be the case, and Petitioner supports this contention with mere conclusory assertions. In addition, Petitioner also seems to contend that his conviction does not exist, (Dkt. 1 at 4-5), and that "the People of the State of New York" have "denied knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief regarding his arrest, indictment, and subsequent conviction (id. at 2). Again, these assertions are unsupported by any coherent factual allegations. Thus, the Court will deny Petitioner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, without prejudice, and summarily dismiss the Petition, without prejudice, due to its vagueness, incoherence, and frivolous nature. See McNally, No. 10-Civ-00921 (MAT), 2012 WL 3230439, at *2; Morgan, No. 11-Civ-0390 (MAT), 2012 WL 5336167, at *9; see also Gonzalez v. Hollingsworth, No. CIV. 15-2993 (RBK), 2015 WL 4094613, at *2 (D.N.J. July 7, 2015). Petitioner will be permitted to refile a habeas petition ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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