IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE SIR CEA G. MAI, aka Hermione Kelly Winter aka Kelly E.S. Aliahmed aka Evonca Sakinah S. Aliahmed : aka Kelly E. Sakinah aka David Allen Allemandi, : Petitioner, v. Civil Action No. 20-1225-LPS ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE 2 STATE OF DELAWARE, Respondents. 2

MEMORANDUM I, BACKGROUND On April 10, 2014, Petitioner pled guilty to second degree rape and continuous sexual abuse of a child (as the lesser included offenses of first degree rape). See Winter v, May,

, at *1 (D. Del. Nov. 17, 2020). The Superior Court sentenced Petitioner as follows: (1) for the continuous sexual abuse of a child conviction, twenty-five years of Level V incarceration (with credit for 216 days previously served), suspended after five years for twenty years of Level HI probation; and (2) for the second degree rape conviction, twenty-five years at Level V, suspended after fifteen years and successful completion of the Transitions Sex Offender Program for one year of Level IV confinement, followed by eight years of Level III probation. See

Petitioner did not appeal her convictions or sentences. In 2017, Petitioner filed a petition for federal habeas relief pursuant to

. See

The Coutt denied the petition in its entirety after determining that one claim lacked metit and

the remaining two claims were procedurally barred from federal habeas review. See id. at *3-9. Petitioner did not appeal that decision to the Third Circuit. Presently pending before the Coutt is Petitioner’s new petition for federal habeas telief pursuant to

(“Petition”). II. LEGAL STANDARDS A federal district court may summarily dismiss a habeas petition “if it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief.” Rule 4, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. A district court can entertain a habeas petition “in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws ot treaties of the United States,” and only if the relief sought is either immediate release or speedier release. See Preiser v. Rodrignex,

(1973). II. DISCUSSION The actual form petition filed by Petitioner does not contain any grounds challenging the legality of her custody, and only states that she seeks “release from prison.” (D.I. 1 at 15) In an “Affidavit” attached to the petition, Petitioner asserts general complaints about the conditions of her confinement, concerns about her ill mother, and her own medical concerns. (D.1. 1-1 at 1) These complaints do not present issues cognizable on federal habeas review, and are more properly assetted via

(although they may also lack metit under that statute as well). Given the number of § 1983 cases Petitioner has filed in this Coutt,' it would appear that Petitioner is

aware of the proper method for raising the instant issues. Accordingly, the Court will summatily dismiss the instant Petition for lack of jurisdiction.

"See, ¢.g., Aliahmed v. Mears, Civ. A. No. 21-219-LPS; Sakinah v. Carney, Civ. A. No. 20-1195-LPS.

IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, the Court will summarily dismiss the instant Petition. The Court will also decline to issue a certificate of appealability because Petitioner has failed to make a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” See

(c)(2); 3d Cit. L.A.R. 22.2 (2011); United States v. Eyer,

(3d Cir. 1997). A separate Order will be entered,

Wilmington, Delaware ] at | LEONARD P. STARK June 13, 2022 UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE