Reyes Muriel v. Salisbury

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
PEDRO J. REYES MURIEL,
Plaintiff,
v.
WAYNE T. SALISBURY, JR.,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
C.A. No. 25-cv-424-JJM-PAS
ORDER
Rule 2 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District
Courts (“Habeas Rule 2”) dictates the form and substance of a habeas petition. 	In
order to substantially comply with the Habeas Rule 2, a petitioner must state specific,
particularized facts that entitle him or her to habeas corpus relief for each ground
specified. 	These facts must consist of sufficient detail to enable the Court to
determine, from the face of the petition alone, whether the petition merits further
habeas corpus review.
See Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 649, 655-56 (2005) (a “notice
pleading” is not enough to satisfy Rule 2(c), because the petitioner is expected to state
facts that point to the real possibility of constitutional error). 	Before the Court is
Petitioner Pedro J. Reyes Muriel’s Petition for Habeas Corpus and Motion for
Evidentiary Hearing. ECF Nos. 1, 11. Upon review of Mr. Reyes’ petition for writ of
habeas corpus, the Court finds that it fails to comply with the Habeas Rule 2
requirements because it fails to state the facts supporting each ground for relief.
The Court recognizes that allegations in a pro se complaint are held to “less
stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers” and are entitled to a
Case 1:25-cv-00424-JJM-PAS Document 14 Filed 01/15/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
liberal construction.
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). But in the absence
of an understandable statement by petitioner of his claims for habeas corpus relief
and of the facts supporting those claims, it is impossible for the opposing party to
respond to the petition. 	In addition, it is impossible for the Court to ascertain the
substance of petitioner’s claims and whether there is any merit to them. 	With the
assistance of counsel the Court has appointed to represent Mr. Reyes throughout this
action, the Court directs him to resubmit a habeas corpus petition that complies with
the requirements set forth in Rule 2.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. 	The Petitioner shall file an Amended Petition that complies with Rule 2 of the
Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases by clearly specifying each ground for relief
and stating facts supporting each ground.
2. 	The Amended Petition shall be filed within sixty days of the date of this Order.
3. 	Respondent shall file a response to the Amended Petition within thirty days
after the Amended Petition is filed.
4. 	Petitioner’s 	Motion 	for 	Evidentiary 	Hearing 	is 	DENIED 	WITHOUT
PREJDUICE as moot. ECF No. 11.
Failure to timely comply with this Order may result in dismissal of this action.
Case 1:25-cv-00424-JJM-PAS Document 14 Filed 01/15/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/John J. McConnell, Jr.
_________________________________
John J. McConnell, Jr.
Chief United States District Judge
January 15, 2026
Case 1:25-cv-00424-JJM-PAS Document 14 Filed 01/15/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>