Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 171 views

    Mack Peyatt v. Manfred Holland, Warden, WV Penitentiary, 811 F.2d 1505, 4th Cir. (1987)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Peyatt filed a habeas corpus petition in federal district court listing 10 grounds for relief but providing no supporting facts, instead attaching his appeal from state court. The district court returned the petition directing Peyatt to include supporting facts within 30 days or face dismissal. Peyatt resubmitted the same petition without facts. The district court dismissed the petition without prejudice for failing to comply with habeas rules requiring supporting facts and the court's order. The appeals court affirmed, finding no error in the district court dismissing the non-compliant petition.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Mack Peyatt v. Manfred Holland, Warden, WV Penitentiary, 811 F.2d 1505, 4th Cir. (1987)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    171 views2 pages
    Peyatt filed a habeas corpus petition in federal district court listing 10 grounds for relief but providing no supporting facts, instead attaching his appeal from state court. The district court returned the petition directing Peyatt to include supporting facts within 30 days or face dismissal. Peyatt resubmitted the same petition without facts. The district court dismissed the petition without prejudice for failing to comply with habeas rules requiring supporting facts and the court's order. The appeals court affirmed, finding no error in the district court dismissing the non-compliant petition.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1987-02-04 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Citations: 811 F.2d 1505 Docket: 85-6488

    Original Title

    Mack Peyatt v. Manfred Holland, Warden, Wv Penitentiary, 811 F.2d 1505, 4th Cir. (1987)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Peyatt filed a habeas corpus petition in federal district court listing 10 grounds for relief but providing no supporting facts, instead attaching his appeal from state court. The district court returned the petition directing Peyatt to include supporting facts within 30 days or face dismissal. Peyatt resubmitted the same petition without facts. The district court dismissed the petition without prejudice for failing to comply with habeas rules requiring supporting facts and the court's order. The appeals court affirmed, finding no error in the district court dismissing the non-compliant petition.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    171 views2 pages

    Mack Peyatt v. Manfred Holland, Warden, WV Penitentiary, 811 F.2d 1505, 4th Cir. (1987)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Peyatt filed a habeas corpus petition in federal district court listing 10 grounds for relief but providing no supporting facts, instead attaching his appeal from state court. The district court returned the petition directing Peyatt to include supporting facts within 30 days or face dismissal. Peyatt resubmitted the same petition without facts. The district court dismissed the petition without prejudice for failing to comply with habeas rules requiring supporting facts and the court's order. The appeals court affirmed, finding no error in the district court dismissing the non-compliant petition.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    811 F.

    2d 1505
    Unpublished Disposition

    NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of


    unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing
    res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires
    service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth
    Circuit.
    Mack PEYATT, Appellant,
    v.
    Manfred HOLLAND, Warden, WV Penitentiary, Appellee.
    No. 85-6488.

    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.


    Submitted Jan. 5, 1987.
    Decided Feb. 4, 1987.

    Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and SENTELLE,


    District Judge for the Western District of North Carolina, sitting by
    designation.
    James A. McLaughlin; Deborah L. McHenry, West Virginia College of
    Law, on brief, for appellant.
    Charles G. Brown, Attorney General; Mary Rich Maloy, Assistant
    Attorney General, on brief, for appellee.
    PER CURIAM:

    In this case appellant Mack Peyatt filed a petition seeking habeas corpus relief
    pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254 in the United States District Court for the
    Northern District of West Virginia. In that habeas corpus petition Peyatt briefly
    listed ten grounds for relief but did not include any facts in support of the
    petition. Instead Peyatt attached a copy of his Petition for Writ of Error and
    Supersedeas filed by his attorney in the Supreme Court of Appeals of West
    Virginia in his direct appeal of his conviction.

    Upon examination of the habeas petition the district court discovered that
    Peyatt had not supplied the court with facts supporting his petition as required
    by Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing Sec. 2254 Cases, but instead had left that
    particular part of the form blank. Therefore the district court returned the
    habeas petition to Peyatt directing him to complete the supporting facts section
    of the form petition and submit it to the Clerk of the Court within 30 days. The
    district court further advised Peyatt that failure to so respond would result in
    dismissal of the habeas corpus petition.

    Peyatt again filed his habeas corpus petition in the district court. The second
    petition was substantially identical to the first, with no supporting facts
    included, and with a copy of the Petition for Writ of Error attached as before.
    The district court then dismissed the habeas corpus petition without prejudice
    for failure to comply with Rule 2(c) and with the earlier order of that court.

    While the district court would probably have been justified in accepting and
    acting upon Peyatt's habeas corpus petition as prepared, it was not required so
    to do. We find no error in the district court's dismissal of the petition for failure
    to comply with an order of that court. Its action was not an abuse of discretion.

    The judgment of the district court is accordingly

    AFFIRMED.

    You might also like