Louisiana, Western District Court

II

In the United States District Court
Western District of Louisiana Monroe Division

 

U.S.A. v. Robinson

3:18-CR-00228-01

PACER. https://pacer.uscourts.gov/

Document 34

Robinson’s Title 28 U.S.C. Chapter 153 Habeas corpus § 2255
Motion to Vacate, Habeas Relief

 

Page 3. Ground One: Mr. Robinson is in custody in violation of Amendments IV and V of the Constitution of the United States. He is being deprived of his liberty, without compelling government reasons for congress to proscribe marijuana as a controlled dangerous substance, therefore without due process of law.

 

Page 6. Relief: To declare liberty is freedom from physical restraint and the U.S. Congress proscribing marijuana as a controlled dangerous substance was arbitrary and unreasonable regulation of property, depriving Mr. Robinson's liberty without compelling reasons, without due process of law contravening Amendments IV and V of the U.S. Constitution thus vacating both his convictions Counts 4, 5.

 

May 4th, 2020 /s/ Robert Robinson

 

Document 43
Court Ruling

 

Page 4. The Fourth Amendment provides that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated . . .” U.S. CONST., AMEND. IV

 

Page 5. “The Fourth Amendment . . . ‘always has been thought to define’ the appropriate process ‘for seizures of person[s] . . . in criminal cases  . . .            Robinson does not allege that officers lacked probable cause to arrest him, and he was arrested pursuant to a properly issued warrant. Nor does he allege that his pre-trial process was
constitutionally deficient in any other way. Rather, Robinson challenges the law under
which he was convicted and his incarceration subject to that law. Under these circumstances, the Fourth Amendment provides no basis for his claim.

2 of 4

 

Page 6. Claims such as those raised by Robinson have been raised by other prisoners throughout the United States and have been uniformly rejected.  . . . no prosecution in the state courts, but faces prosecution in the federal courts, creating a violation of the Due Process Clause


Page 7. Further, the Government need not offer “compelling” reasons for prosecution of Robinson’s marijuana offenses because there is no fundamental right to possess, use, or distribute marijuana.

 

Page 8. The Court agrees with the courts which have rejected claims such as those raised by Robinson.

 

MONROE, LOUISIANA, this 13th day of May, 2020.

/s/Terry A. Doughty United States District Judge

 

Document 45
Certificate of Appealability

 

A final order having been filed in the above-captioned habeas case, the Court, considering the record in this case and the requirements of 28 U.S.C. ' 2253, hereby finds that:

The certificate of appealability is DENIED because the applicant has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

MONROE, LOUISIANA, this 13th day of May, 2020.

/s/Terry A. Doughty United States District Judge

 

Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings
For the United States District Court

https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/rules-governing-section-2254-and-section-2255-proceedings.pdf

Rule 5. The Answer and The Reply.
(a) When Required. The respondent is not required to answer the motion unless a judge so orders.
(b) Contents. The answer must address the allegations in the motion.
 

III

The court violated its own rules. Judge Doughty failed to respond to Robertson’s allegation of Ground One for habeas relief in his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Motion to Vacate. Being incarcerated is deprivation of liberty, a concrete injury of a constitutional right                   .

Judge Doughty believes both clauses of Amendment IV refer to probable cause and “provides no basis for his claim.”  The first clause of the Fourth Amendment refers to the reasonableness of the law that authorizes the use of police power to search and seize persons, houses, papers and effects.  To claim this section is about probable cause makes the second clause redundant.

                                                                                3 of 3

Ground One is not an “allegation” of selective prosecution violating due process as claimed in the court’s response. This is not a claim that marijuana is a fundamental right. Fact is:  marijuana is property. The right to acquire property is a constitutional right.

Ground One is about my right of liberty, freedom from physical restraint by seeking habeas relief. This is about my constitutional right of due process of law being willfully denied. I have a constitutional right to know the compelling reasons for Congress to proscribe marijuana that has deprived me of his constitutional right of liberty, freedom from physical restraint.  

Under the color of law, Judge Doughty has willfully denied the fact that being incarcerated in a federal prison is a substantial showing of a denial of my constitutional right to liberty.

Here's where you can enter in text. Feel free to edit, move, delete or add a different page element.

 

 

Print Print | Sitemap
Our Rights Their Betrayal