ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Petitioner, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, together with an application to proceed in forma pauperis.
Examination of the in forma pauperis application reveals that petitioner is unable to afford the costs of suit. Accordingly, the application to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
Petitioner commenced this action by filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Therein, he alleges that he was tried and convicted in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois for conspiracy to commit robbery affecting interstate commerce, robbery affecting interstate commerce, and use of a firearm during the commission of a crime of violence. On August 5, 2002, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed petitioner's conviction. Petitioner alleges that he subsequently moved to vacate his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, but the district court denied his motion. He further alleges that he then requested a certificate of appealability, but both the district court and the Seventh Circuit denied his request. (Pet. at 1-2.)
Petitioner asserts the following claims in his petition:
GROUND ONE: Whether the Gov. allowed petitioner to be extradited and [illegible] before the grand jury based on perjured testimony, false evidence, misstatement of the laws and foul tactics especially for federal jurisdiction.
GROUND TWO: Whether the government drafted information/indictment which was hollow that allowed large free hand to manipulate/influence the grand jury's vote that was supported partially by consciously perjured testimony, manufactured/fabricated, false evidence, misstatement of the law and foul tactics especially to meet the nexus for federal jurisdiction.
GROUND THREE: Whether petitioner was denied his constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him.
GROUND FOUR: Whether every attorney that represented the petitioner was ineffective.
GROUND FIVE: Whether petitioner should be denied a (COA) on his 2255 denial when he never received any order from the District Court informing him that his 2255 was denied.
GROUND SIX: Whether the petitioner was denied his constitutional rights to clarify his 2255. (Pet. at 3-7.)