United States District Court, E.D. California
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT COURT DISMISS
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
AND AS FRIVOLOUS ECF NO. 1
Kenneth Roshaun Reid, a federal prisoner without counsel,
sought a writ of mandamus under 28 U.S.C. § 1361.
Reid v. Clayton, 1:19-cv-549, ECF No. 1. (E.D. Cal.
Apr. 24, 2019). He argued that the court must compel the
Commissioner of the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission to collect ten million dollars allegedly owed to
him. See generally id. The court dismissed the case
as frivolous, and petitioner attempted to file a Section 2241
habeas petition in that closed case. ECF No. 1 at 1. Rather
than docketing the newly-filed Section 2241 petition in Case
No. 1:19-cv-549, the clerk of court appropriately opened this
new case. See id. The Section 2241 petition is now
under preliminary review under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing
Section 2254 Cases, which the court may apply in any habeas
proceeding. See Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases,
Rule 1(b); cf. 28 U.S.C. § 2243. I recommend
that the court dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction and
contends that the court must order his immediate release and
payment to him of two million dollars. He argues that he is
entitled to such relief because he is innocent-for the
(1) The government had no “bona fide contract”
before detaining petitioner.
(2) The court that sentenced petitioner was an admiralty
(3) There were “no charges bonded” to the
(4) Petitioner’s charges were never read into the
(5) Petitioner’s charges were not submitted to a grand
(6) The government could not state a claim against petitioner
because there was no “verified claim” against
ECF No. 1 at 3-10. Petitioner has not signed the petition
under the penalty of perjury as required under Rule 2(c).
Id. at 10. And the allegations mischaracterize what
happened in petitioner’s criminal proceeding, which
resulted in his conviction for murder in connection with drug
trafficking. See generally United States v. Reid,
523 F.3d 310, 312 (4th Cir. 2008); United States v.
Reid, No. 0:04-cr-353 (D.S.C. filed Mar. 30, 2004);
cf. Reid v. Kizziah, No. 7:18-cv-16, 2018
WL 3213616, at *1 (E.D. Ky. June 29, 2018) (summary of
petitioner’s criminal proceeding).
has litigated habeas petitions under Sections 2241 before
several courts, including this one. See Reid v.
Ebbert, No. 1:17-cv-1062, ECF No. 8 at 2-4 (M.D. Pa.
2017) (compiling a list of petitions filed by Reid under
Sections 2241 and 2254); Reid v. Lake, No.
1:19-cv-244, 2019 WL 4045689, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2019),
recommendation adopted, 2019 WL 4033881 (E.D. Cal.
Aug. 27, 2019). As this court has already explained, to
proceed with a habeas petition under the savings clause-as
petitioner attempts to do here-he must: (1) claim actual
innocence and (2) have had no “unobstructed procedural
shot” at presenting his claims. Reid, 2019 WL
4045689, at *2 (quoting Stephens v. Herrera, 464
F.3d 895, 898 (9th Cir. 2006)). None of petitioner’s
arguments pertain to his actual innocence: a claim of actual
innocence means “factual innocence”-that is, the
petitioner must not have committed the underlying offense-not
that there has been a legal error. See Bousley v. United
States, 523 U.S. 614, 623 (1998). Petitioner also had an
unobstructed opportunity to litigate the claims he raises now
on direct appeal. See United States v. Reid, 523
F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2008). Most fundamentally, his claims
frivolous. Petitioner was, in fact, indicted by a grand jury.
See Reid, No. 0:04-cr-353, ECF Nos. 56, 138.
Petitioner’s criminal proceeding took place before a
district court, not an admiralty court. See Reid,
No. 0:04-cr-353 (D.S.C. filed Mar. 30, 2004). Other arguments,
such as the one that the government needed a “bona
fide” contract with petitioner before detaining him,
have no basis in law.
the court should decline to issue a certificate of
appealability. A prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has
no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s
denial of his petition, and an appeal is allowed only in
certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537
U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003); 28 U.S.C. § 2253. In cases
where the court denies habeas relief on procedural grounds,
the court will issue a certificate of appealability “if
jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the
petition states a valid claim of the denial of a
constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it
debatable whether the district court was correct in its
procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529
U.S. 473, 484 (2000). “Where a plain procedural bar is
present and the district court is correct to invoke it to
dispose of the case, a reasonable jurist could not conclude
either that the district court erred in dismissing the
petition or that the petitioner should be allowed to proceed
further.” Id. Here, reasonable jurists would
not find the court’s determination that the petition
should be dismissed debatable or wrong, or that petitioner
should be allowed to proceed further.
recommend that the court dismiss the case for lack of
jurisdiction and as frivolous.
findings and recommendations are submitted to the U.S.
District Court Judge presiding over this case under 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of
Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern
District of California. Within fourteen days of the service
of the findings and recommendations, petitioner may file
written objections to the findings and recommendations with
the court and serve a copy on all parties. That document must
be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s