CAMPBELL v. BRYSON

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION
REMOI CAMPBELL,
Petitioner,
vs. 	Case No.: 4:26-cv-257-TKW-ZCB
M. BRYSON,
Respondent.
___________________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner has filed a pro se amended petition for a writ of habeas
corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 9). The habeas petition appears to
challenge Petitioner’s state conviction in Case No. 16-CF-019024 (Lee
Cnty. Cir. Ct.). 	(Doc. 9 at 2). 	Petitioner is currently confined in the
Florida State Prison, which is located in Bradford County. 	(Id. at 1, 7).
For the reasons below, this case should be dismissed because it does not
state a legal or factual basis for habeas relief.
I. 	Background
Petitioner claims his petition concerns, inter alia, “the conspiracy
theory about space.” (Doc. 9 at 2). Petitioner describes being barred from
criminal 	and 	civil 	proceedings 	as a 	result 	of his 	conviction. 	(Id.).
Petitioner alleges that the Middle District of Florida and the Eleventh
Case 4:26-cv-00257-TKW-ZCB Document 10 Filed 06/26/26 Page 1 of 6

2
Circuit have denied his appeals and that he is “done!” 	(Id.). 	Petitioner
believes he is “a hero” and references filing various writs in three
different cases. (Id. at 3).
According to Petitioner, the Middle District’s receipt of papers from
the Eleventh Circuit “served as a mandate to govern further proceedings
and CMECF is brilliant.” (Id.). Petitioner states that the Middle District
“is compelled to release” him and that a judge in the Middle District “is
the evil here.” 	(Id. at 4). 	Petitioner claims he is using his “FBI name
now” and that his story “is just the same like Jesus.” 	(Id.). 	Petitioner
says “there is no further requirement to litigate” in his “birth name
because it is clear that [he is] a new agent.” 	(Id.). 	Petitioner references
someone named “Jessica” and claims he is “coming to America.” 	(Id.).
Petitioner states that his social security number is redacted and he “got
credit cards without a background check.” 	(Id. 	at 4-5). 	Petitioner
apparently shares a social security number with his mom, brother, and
grandmother as part of a family-owned company. 	(Id. at 5). 	Petitioner
claims he stole his grandmother’s identity and got arrested as her. (Id.).
Petitioner claims the “law demands [his] immediate release from prison.”
(Id. at 6).
Case 4:26-cv-00257-TKW-ZCB Document 10 Filed 06/26/26 Page 2 of 6

3
II. 	Discussion
Petitioner’s habeas petition does not state a legal or factual
basis for habeas relief.
Under the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the United States
District Courts,1 the Court must promptly examine a habeas petition,
and “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits
that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge
must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner.”
Rule 4, Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. 	Rule 4 thus authorizes federal
district courts to pre-screen and “dismiss summarily” a frivolous habeas
corpus petition prior to any answer or other pleading by the state when
the petition “appears legally insufficient on its face[.]” 	McFarland v.
Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994); Paez v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 947 F.3d
649, 654 (11th Cir. 2020) (explaining that federal district courts have a
duty “to screen out frivolous applications and eliminate the burden that
1 These Rules apply to petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 	See Rule 1(b),
Rules Governing § 2254 Cases (stating that the “district court may apply
any or all of these rules to a habeas corpus petition not covered by Rule
1(a)”). 	Additionally, this Court’s Local Rules provide that the “Rules
Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, as
adopted by the Supreme Court, apply to all habeas corpus petitions in
this District whether or not filed under section 2254.” 	N.D. Fla. Loc. R.
5.7(C).
Case 4:26-cv-00257-TKW-ZCB Document 10 Filed 06/26/26 Page 3 of 6

4
would be placed on the respondent by ordering an unnecessary answer”).
That is what should happen here.
Petitioner’s 	allegations 	are 	patently 	frivolous 	and 	nonsensical.
Nowhere in the amended petition does Petitioner even attempt to assert
a legal or factual basis for federal habeas relief. 	Petitioner’s vague
narrative of his frustrations with the judicial system and his references
to various non-parties have no apparent relevance to this proceeding.
And the amended petition does not even cite to the Constitution or federal
law 	in 	support 	of 	why 	Petitioner 	should 	be 	granted 	habeas 	relief.
Instead, Petitioner merely claims that the “law demands [his] immediate
release from prison.” Simply put, the fanciful allegations in the amended
petition are far from sufficient to justify federal habeas relief.
III. 	Conclusion
Because the 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition does not allege any legal or
factual basis for habeas relief, this case should be dismissed.
IV. 	Certificate of Appealability
Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United
States District Courts provides that “[t]he district court must issue or
deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to
the applicant[,]” and if a certificate is issued “the court must state the
Case 4:26-cv-00257-TKW-ZCB Document 10 Filed 06/26/26 Page 4 of 6

5
specific issue or issues that satisfy the showing required by 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(2).”2 Rule 11(a), Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. Section 2253(c)
“permits the issuance of a COA only where a petitioner has made a
‘substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.’” 	Miller-El v.
Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003) (quoting § 2253(c)(2)). 	“At the COA
stage, the only question is whether the applicant has shown that jurists
of 	reason 	could 	disagree 	with 	the 	district 	court’s 	resolution 	of 	his
constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented
are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” 	Buck v.
Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115 (2017) (cleaned up).
Here, Petitioner cannot make the requisite showing. Therefore, the
undersigned recommends that the final order in this case deny Petitioner
a 	certificate 	of 	appealability. 	If 	Petitioner 	objects 	to 	this
recommendation, then he may present argument on the issue by bringing
it to the district judge’s attention in his objections.
Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that:
2 Although Petitioner appears to be a convicted prisoner rather than a
pretrial detainee, a certificate of appealability is also required for a
pretrial detainee to appeal the dismissal of a federal habeas corpus
petition. 	See Hiteshaw v. Butterfield, 262 F. App’x 162, 163 (11th Cir.
2008).
Case 4:26-cv-00257-TKW-ZCB Document 10 Filed 06/26/26 Page 5 of 6

6
1. 	The amended habeas petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241
(Doc. 9) be DISMISSED as frivolous.
2. 	A certificate of appealability be DENIED.
3. 	All pending motions be DENIED as moot.
4. 	The Clerk of Court be instructed to close this case.
At Pensacola, Florida this 26th day of June 2026.
/s/ Zachary C. Bolitho
Zachary C. Bolitho
United States Magistrate Judge
Notice to the Parties
Objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must
be 	filed 	within 	fourteen 	days 	of 	the 	date 	of 	the 	Report 	and
Recommendation. 	Any 	different 	deadline 	that 	may 	appear 	on 	the
electronic docket is for the Court’s internal use only and does not control.
An objecting party must serve a copy of the objections on all other parties.
A 	party 	who 	fails 	to 	object 	to 	the 	magistrate 	judge’s 	findings 	or
recommendations contained in a report and recommendation waives the
right 	to 	challenge 	on 	appeal 	the 	district 	court’s 	order 	based 	on
unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions. 	See 11th Cir. Rule 3-1; 28
U.S.C. § 636.
Case 4:26-cv-00257-TKW-ZCB Document 10 Filed 06/26/26 Page 6 of 6