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.

Jones v. Bear

United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma

March 13, 2018

HOMER JONES, Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN BEAR, Respondent.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          SUZANNE MITCHELL UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         Homer Jones (Petitioner), a state prisoner appearing pro se, seeks habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Doc. I.[1] Chief United States District Judge Joe Heaton has referred the matter to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for initial proceedings consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), (C). Doc. 4. Because "it plainly appears from the petition . . . that [P]etitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, " the undersigned recommends its summary dismissal without prejudice to refiling. Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts (Section 2254 Rules).[2]

         I. Petitioner's claims.

         Petitioner raises four "ground[s] (reason[s]) t[o] support[ his] claim that [he is] being held in violation of the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." Doc. 1, at 7.

         A. Ground One.

         Petitioner first alleges that his "[d]etention is in violation of Constitution, and Okla state courts lack jurisdiction over American Indians who commit crimes in Indian country, upon an-Indian, on Indian land, inside an Indian reservation, and detention is violative of well-established federal law, constitution, and treaties."[3] Id. As factual support, Petitioner states,

In 1866, the U.S. Congress passed acts and signed treaties that all crimes inside an Indian reservation, in "Indian-country", Indian tribal reservations inside the "Indian-nations" geographical boundrys of todays State of Okla, except the pan handle, could only be tried in a federal court, depriving all Okla state courts of jurisdiction, making detention violate "well-established" federal law, constitution and treaty.

         Id.

         B. Ground Two.

         Next, Petitioner maintains "all Okla residants of this state, have a federal due process of law right to be informed of their federal right to be prosecuted only by a grand-jury indictment, and given an opportunity to waive it, before a state court can gain jurisdiction to proceed by an [illegible] motion." Id. For his "[s]upporting facts, " he states, Longstanding, clear and well established federal laws, treaties and constitution, is violated, making detention unconstitutional, entitling Petitioner to immediate habeas relief. Equal protection of law mandates any right a person has in one states, they have in all states. 38 states prohibit prosecution without a grand jury indictment, as Okla did from 1907, to 1968-by-treaties, constitution and laws.

         Id.

         C. Ground Three.

         Here, Petitioner's claim is that "no Okla state court will hear a habeas-corpus on these issues; have denied access to courts, due process and suspended habeas-corpus to state prisoners, making detention violative of clear constitution and federal laws, requiring habeas relief." Id. In support, Petitioner maintains that "when state detains a person in violation of clearly established federal law, constitution and treaties, and state court's bar access for habeas corpus, federal habeas is proper." Id. at 8.

         D. ...


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.