United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
T. ERWIN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
a state prisoner appearing pro se, seeks a writ of
habeas corpus alleging a violation of his rights under 28
U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF Nos. 1 & 8). United States
District Court Judge David L. Russell has referred the matter
to the undersigned magistrate judge for initial proceedings
consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)-(C). In
accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254
Cases, the undersigned has examined the Petition and taken
judicial notice of various state court records. After review, the
undersigned recommends that the Court
DISMISS the Petition on screening.
September 22, 2017, in Payne County District Court Case No.
CF-2017-492, Petitioner plead guilty to assault and battery
with a dangerous weapon. (ECF No. 1:2). Mr. Gage did not file
a motion to withdraw the plea, and his conviction became
final ten days later, on October 2, 2017. See OCCA
Rule 4.2. Mr. Gage sought Post-Conviction Relief in the Payne
County District Court, but that Court dismissed/denied the
application.Mr. Gage challenged the District
Court's decision by filing an appeal in the OCCA, which
that court dismissed as untimely. On December 12, 2018 and
January 7, 2019 respectively, Mr. Gage filed a Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus and a Supplement to the Petition,
challenging the Payne County conviction. See ECF
Nos. 1:1; 8:1; supra, n.1.
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. III.
PETITIONER'S GROUNDS FOR RELIEF
Supplement, Mr. Turner outlines four grounds for relief:
1. Ineffective assistance of trial counsel;
2. Improper placement on “suicide detainment;”
3. He was prejudiced owing to negligence by employees of the
Department of Veterans Affairs; and
4. He was “inappropriately treated” in a state
court case arising out of Tulsa County, CF-2013-6202.
(ECF No. 8:5-9).