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.

Martin v. State

United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma

March 26, 2018

DENNIS MARTIN, Petitioner,
v.
STATE OF OKLAHOMA, et al., Respondent.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          SHON T. ERWIN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         State prisoner Dennis Martin seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 1). United States District Judge Timothy D. DeGiusti has referred this matter to the undersigned magistrate judge for initial proceedings consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)-(C). The Court should summarily DISMISS the petition without prejudice.

          I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT

         The Court is required to review habeas petitions promptly and to “summarily dismiss [a] petition without ordering a responsive pleading, ” Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 656 (2005), “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” See R. 4, R. Governing § 2254 Cases in U.S. Dist. Ct.[1]

         II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PETITIONER'S CLAIMS

         Petitioner informs the Court that he is confined at the Joseph Harp Correctional Center but he fails to identify anything else about his sentence(s). That is, the Court does not know when or where Petitioner was sentenced, or for what and for how long. See ECF No. 1:1.

         In the Petition, Mr. Martin raises four grounds for relief, all of which essentially challenge his conviction on the basis that the state court lacked jurisdiction to convict him. In Ground One, Petitioner states that the federal court system has “exclusive jurisdiction over ALL crimes, committed by anyone, anywhere within the Indian nation, Indian country, or on Indian land or inside an Indian reservation.” (ECF No. 1:7) (emphasis in original). Mr. Martin states that he “is Indian, was at all times on Cherokee Nation reservation land, inside Indian country.” (ECF No. 1:7) (emphasis in original). As a result, Mr. Martin believes that his current detention in a state facility based on a state court conviction is in violation of federal law, presumably because he believes the state court lacked jurisdiction to render the conviction. (ECF No. 1:6).

         In Ground Two, Petitioner essentially argues the same point raised in Ground One, stating that the Oklahoma state court system lacks jurisdiction “over Indians, Indian land, Indian County, Indian nations AND reservations.” (ECF No. 1:7). In support of this argument, Petitioner reminds the Court that he is a Native American and “was at all times on Cherokee Nation reservation land, inside Indian country, ” presumably when he committed his crime. (ECF No. 1:7) (emphasis in original). In support of Ground Two, Petitioner also argues that Oklahoma has discriminated against him by denying him access to the courts and suspending habeas corpus rights. (ECF No. 1:7).

         The entirety of Ground Three states:

United-Nations-Resolutions, international law, well established federal law since 1866 Act of Congress-places this matter before this court. Research cannot find where Congress took the authority of this court over crimes committed inside the Cherokee, Creek, Seminole, Chocktaw [sic], and Chickasaw sovereign Indian nations, away, or transferred it to any other court, not even under this doctrine of immonent [sic] domain].

(ECF No. 1:7).

         Finally, in Ground Four, Petitioner argues that the “failure of the United-States-Government to protect this Indians treaty, U.S. Constitution, rights under clearly established prior cases of this Court involving Indians warrants habeas relief.” (ECF No. 1:8).

         III. DISMISSAL

         It is “the nature of a prisoner's confinement, not the fact of his confinement” that is the gravamen of a Section 2241 petition or challenge. Prost v. Anderson, 636 F.3d 578, 581 (10th Cir. 2011) (emphasis in original). Here, Mr. Martin alleges no facts to show that he is challenging the execution of his sentence or the nature of his confinement. He does not, for instance, seek to challenge “certain matters that occur at prison, such as deprivation of good-time credits and other prison disciplinary matters . . . affecting the fact or duration” of his custody. Hale v. Fox, 829 F.3d 1162, 1165 n.2 (10th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation omitted). Instead, Petitioner's Grounds for relief “attempt[] a frontal assault on his conviction.” Prost, 636 F.3d at 581. For example, in Grounds One and Two, Mr. Martin repeatedly argues that the state court lacked jurisdiction to convict him; and because he is Native American, and suggests that he committed his crime on “Indian land, ” that “exclusive jurisdiction” would have been in a federal court. See ECF No. 1:6-7. While such attacks are proper in a Section 2254 action, McIntosh v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 115 F.3d 809, 811 (10th Cir. 1997), they fail to establish a basis for habeas relief arising under Section 2241 because they do not attack the execution of ...


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.