Cookish v. Pinellas County State Attorney et al.
Filing
12
ORDER: The petition for the writ of habeas corpus 1 is DISMISSED as moot. The dismissal is without prejudice to Petitioner filing, in a new case with a new case number, a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 after the state judgments are final. Petitioner's Motion to Recharacterize 11 is DENIED. The Clerk is directed to close this file. Signed by Judge James S. Moody, Jr on 11/5/2012. (LN)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
DENNIS R. COOKISH,
Petitioner,
v.
Case No. 8:12-cv-1844-T-30AEP
PINELLAS COUNTY STATE
ATTORNEY, et al.,
Respondents.
/
ORDER
THIS MATTER comes before this court on Petitioner Dennis R. Cookish’s
(hereinafter “Petitioner”) petition for the writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241
(Dkt. 1). The Court will dismiss the petition as moot.
Background
At the time Petitioner filed his petition on August 8, 2012, he was an inmate in the
federal prison system. He brought the petition to challenge detainers levied against him by
the State of Florida for a 2001 indictment in case number CRC0105168CFANO, and a 2000
indictment in case number CRC0021654CFANO, in the Sixth Judicial Circuit Court, Pinellas
County, Florida. Petitioner argued that Florida’s failure to bring him to trial on the 2000 and
2001 charges after more than eight years violated his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy
trial. Petitioner petitioned this Court to rule that his right to a speedy trial was violated, and
dismiss the detainers lodged against him.
On November 1, 2012, Petitioner filed his “Motion to Recharacterize” (Dkt. 11) in
which he indicated that he has now been convicted and sentenced in the two state cases, and
requested the Court recharacterize his petition as a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
Analysis
As noted above, the Pinellas County cases have now been disposed of. Therefore, the
detainers that were issued are no longer in effect.1 Consequently, Petitioner’s challenge to
the detainers are now moot. See Byrd v. Martin, 754 F.2d 963, 964 n.3 (11th Cir. 1985) (per
curiam) (“Since the petition attacked a detainer requiring that Byrd answer to criminal
charges, it was moot once Byrd pled guilty to the charges and the detainer was no longer in
effect.”).
Further, with regard to Petitioner’s request to recharacterize the petition as filed
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, a search of the Pinellas County Clerk of the Court’s website,
http://www.pinellasclerk.org, reveals that Petitioner was sentenced in the Pinellas County
cases on October 29, 2012. Therefore, the judgments of conviction are not final at this time.
28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A) (A judgment of conviction is final at “the conclusion of direct
review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review.”) Consequently, the Court
cannot recharacterize the petition as filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See Maharaj v.
Sec’y Dep’t of Corr., 304 F.3d 1345 (11th Cir. 2002) (finding federal habeas petition was not
ripe for review when state judgment was not yet final).
1
“[A] detainer. . .puts the officials of the institution in which the prisoner is incarcerated on notice that the
prisoner is wanted in another jurisdiction for trial upon his release from prison.” United States v. Mauro, 436 U.S.
340, 358 (1978) (emphasis added). Petitioner has already been convicted in the two Pinellas County cases.
2
It is therefore ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
1.
The petition for the writ of habeas corpus (Dkt. 1) is DISMISSED as moot.
The dismissal is without prejudice to Petitioner filing, in a new case with a new case number,
a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 after the state judgments are final.
2.
Petitioner’s Motion to Recharacterize (Dkt. 11) is DENIED.
3.
The Clerk is directed to close this file.
DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on November 5, 2012.
Copy Furnished To:
Counsel/Parties of Record
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?