No. 18-6065

In Re Eric M. Richardson

Lower Court: N/A
Docketed: 2018-09-24
Status: Dismissed
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: civil-rights constitutional-rights criminal-procedure due-process fifth-amendment grand-jury habeas-corpus judicial-procedure pro-se-petition sentencing standing
Key Terms:
DueProcess HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference: 2018-10-12
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the petitioner's conviction and sentence violated his Fifth Amendment right to be tried only on an offense made out in a presentment or indictment returned by an independent grand jury panel

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

No question identified. : “ : JURISDICTIONAL } This Honorable Supreme Court has judicial jurisdiction, to entertain and provide the parties just redress, and demands of relief by the delegated authority . of the Article 3, section 2, of the Constitution of the United States, “and by congressional statutory section 1651, of the Title 28, of United States Code; _ "(ALL WRIT ACT)." ; o ; RELIEF SOUGHT : Petitioner Eric M. Richardson, seeks as relief ag the follow: : His immediate release from all unlawful restraints upon his human body, . and civil liberty rights, privileges, and immunity, as enjoyed by all free persons, “ in the United States. : m= : INTRODUCTIONAL ™ ; Procedural Background : , ; On May 28,2009, said Petitioner Eric M. Richardson, was alléged to had been indictment by a Féderal Grand Jury. The charging instrument herein, is alleged to had been returned on May 26, 2009, in the United States District Court, for the Northern District of Maryland, operating business in the city of Baltimore. That charging instrument (indictment) sre alleged to consist of two separate counts : re ss The count one, are alleged to held accusations of crime conducts ; that was in violation of " Conspiracy to participate in Racketeering Activity," in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(4), and 1962(d), and also in"violation of the Title 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a), and 846, the Grand Jury's accusations of the , crime conducts, was held in the (indictment's) paragraphs 3 through 24, of 34 1 . pages charging instrument, the count two of the said charging instrutient( indictment) held the same accusations held in the instrument's count one paragraphs 3 through 14, and paragraphs 17 through 24, as to crime conducts of Conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute Controlled Substance in violation of Title 21 U.S.C, §§ 841(a), and 846. ' Petitioner Richardson, was brought before the féderadi district court, herein, on May 28,2009, in a proceeding title initial appears, at that relevant time and place the federal district court were presented with the facts of this petitioner's suffering with multiple mental and Physical maladies, and prior to his arrest had been under psychologist and psychiatrist care for more then a year. _ On July: 23,2009, an arraignment hearing proceeding was conducted in the federal district court, and again Petitioner's mental maladies was presented to ‘ that court. 3 : * “ be On July 26,2010, Petitioner Richardson, plea guilty to the count two ' of the Grand Jury's indictment, and again Richardson's mental maladies was . . presented before that court. 7 a , : On December 1, 2010, Richardson was sentenced to a term of 180 months imprisonment, and five(5) years supervised release upon completion of the imprisonment term, and again Richardson's mental maladies was presented to sentencing court. During Pre-trial stages :_ os On August 5,2009, a writ of habeas corpus in pursuant of title 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3), was filed in the trial court, it was dismissed without notice or opportunity to be heard dn September 2009, the instrument consisted of lawful, : and fundamental interests challenging that court's jurisdiction, and: substantial ; rights deprivation, ° es . Post-trail Proceedings and Remedies soughted: . “ 4 In 2012, Petitioner Richardson, filed his initial § 2255, that remedy petition, was ruled procedurally barred in 2013. , os ; Petitioner Richardson sought certificate of appealability in the Fourth Circuit United States Court of Appeals, in 2013, that motion was denied, Also in 2013, Richardson, sought a writ of mandamus in the trial court soughting a responds to his pre-trial writ of habeas corpus, that motion was also denied... Allegations of the writ of habeas corpus dismissal was lawfully ; dismissed in September 2009, even though Petitioner was never notified of the proceedings that was conducted in his pro se writ in his absent. ss . ; On August 7, 2014, Richardson filed a writ of habeas corpus in pursuant § 2

Docket Entries

2018-10-15
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied, and the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is dismissed. See Rule 39.8.
2018-10-03
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2018-09-27
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/12/2018.
2018-09-03
Petition for writ of habeas corpus and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed.

Attorneys

Eric M. Richardson
Eric M. Richardson — Petitioner
Eric M. Richardson — Petitioner
United States
Noel J. FranciscoSolicitor General, Respondent
Noel J. FranciscoSolicitor General, Respondent