Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Wells v. Unnamed

United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Roanoke Division.

June 23, 2014

TINA MARIE WELLS, Petitioner,
v.
UNNAMED, Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

MICHAEL F. URBANSKI, District Judge.

Tina Marie Wells, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se , filed a pleading which the court construes as a petition for writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254.[1] In her petition, Wells alleges the following:

Ground One: The prosecution's burden of proof.
Supporting Facts: The hospital report from the University of Virginia Hospital's emergency room and triage report stated that it took 2 to 3 stitches to close the wound up. A Mannassas County Judge heard the case. Herman A. Whisenant, Jr. in Fluvanna combined district court on 10/21/2005.
Ground Two: The defendant's right to due process of the law.
Supporting Facts: Offense date 4/2/2005. Arrest date 4/3/2005. Grand jury 6/27/2005. True Bill-Case has been set. Trial 10/21/2005. From the date the charges were filed to the date of the trial. 120 days have expired.
Ground Three: A defendant's right to counsel.
Supporting Facts: Steven Shareff, Esq. of Louisa County, Virginia, (540)748-2176, P.O. Box 729, Louisa, VA 23093 (2005). Was the legal defense for Tina Marie Wells of Fluvanna County Virginia Court case was held in combined district court in Fluvanna County.
Ground Four: A defendant's right to a speedy trial.
Supporting Facts: Arrest date 4/3/2005. Trial date of 10/21/2005, 120 day for due process of the law has expired.

Upon initial review of Wells' pleading, the court conditionally filed the petition and advised Wells that it could not discern a cognizable federal habeas claim from the allegations in her petition. The court directed Wells to submit a more definite statement of her claims within ten days. Wells did not respond.

Pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the court must dismiss a petition "if it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief...." Because Wells alleges no cognizable federal habeas claim, the court finds that it plainly appears that she is not entitled to habeas relief.[2] Accordingly, the court dismisses this action without prejudice to Wells' opportunity to refile her petition.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.