Clemens v. Morales

Filing 16

ORDER directing respondent to file a response addressing petitioner's claim that Warden Morales has failed to process the request for disposition of the detainer against him. ( Compliance due by 3/30/2017.) Signed by Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith on 3/22/17. (wwp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
iiTkJ[IA
JAMES CLEMENS,
Petitioner,

CV417-040

V.

JOSE MORALES, Warden,
Respondent.

ORDER
Petitioner James Clemens is incarcerated at Coastal State Prison in
the State of Georgia. Invoking 28 U.S.C. § 2254, he filed his petition in
the Northern District of Georgia, seeking dismissal of an Illinois detainer
lodged against him' and, apparently, release from custody. Doc. 1. But
for the detainer, he claims, he would be released from custody within
mere weeks. Doc. 15. He contends that he has requested, and been

1

The Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act (IADA), 18 U.S.C. App. pp. 585-620
(1985), is a congressionally sanctioned interstate compact which establishes a
procedure for a prisoner incarcerated in one state to demand the speedy disposition of
"any untried indictment, information, or complaint" that is the basis of a detainer
lodged against him by another state. If the prisoner makes such demand, the IADA
requires the authorities in the prosecuting state to bring the person to trial within
180 days, or that court must dismiss the indictment, information, or complaint, and
the detainer will cease to be of any force or effect. The IADA requires a prisoner to
"cause to be delivered to the prosecuting officer and the appropriate court of the
prosecuting officer's jurisdiction written notice of the place of his imprisonment and
his request for a final disposition to be made of the indictment." IADA, art. 111(a).

denied, a hearing on the detainer lodged against him and that extradition
proceedings have begun.

See id. He has entered a plea in the Illinois

matter, id., but it is unclear from his submissions to the Court what
effect, if any, that plea has had on the extradition proceedings or his
continued incarceration.
Construing his petition as one under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, the
Northern District of Georgia transferred his case to the this district, the
place of his incarceration. Doc. 3. This Court, in addition to noting
multiple procedural deficiencies apparent in the pleadings, then
transferred the matter to the Northern District of Illinois for disposition.
Doc. 7. In doing so, the Court relied on Jarchman v. Nash, 473 U.S. 716,
722 (1985), which noted that venue is proper in the prosecuting state
which lodged the detainer against petitioner -- here, Illinois. Doc. 7.
The Northern District of Illinois disagreed, noting that petitioner's
Will County, Illinois case for "operating a continuing financial
enterprise, identi[t]y theft, and forgery . . . has not progressed past
indictment because Clemens has not yet been arrested.

See Illinois v.

Clemens, No. 16 CF 776 (Circuit Court of Will County)." Doc. 11 at 1.
Clemens informed the Northern District of Illinois that he would like to

2

plead guilty to those charges, and thus serve his Illinois sentence
concurrently to his Georgia sentence.

Id. (citing N.D. Ill. Doc. 6 and

I.L.C.S. 5/5-8-4 ("When an Illinois court . . . imposes a sentence of
imprisonment on a defendant who is already subject to a sentence of
imprisonment imposed by an Illinois court, a court of another state, or a
federal court, then the sentences shall run concurrently unless otherwise
determined by the Illinois court under this Section.")). The Northern
District of Illinois therefore determined that venue was proper in this
district, based on the additional information provided by petitioner,
because "the problem lies in the transferor state. Clemens alleges that
Morales, the Georgia warden, has refused to file his final disposition
request with the Illinois prosecutor and court as required by the IADA.
[and] by his reckoning, Georgia is thereby preventing his transfer to
Illinois for resolution of the charges pending there[,] "which thus makes
the case distinguishable from Carchman. Id. at 2.
So Clemens is back, nearly at the date of his release from Georgia
custody and extradition to Illinois (apparently March 31, 2017) -- still
without resolution of his attempt to serve his time for his Illinois crimes
concurrently to the Georgia sentence already served.

3

See doc. 15.

Meanwhile, this Court is in the dark, procedurally, on the
communications and plans (if any) made by Illinois and Georgia
regarding petitioner's incarceration and extradition.
Respondent is therefore ORDERED, by no later than March 30,
2017, 2 to file a response addressing petitioner's claim that Warden
Morales has failed to process his request for disposition of the detainer
lodged against him. Respondent shall furnish with the response a copy of
any relevant documents that will elucidate the matter.

SO ORDERED, this 22nd day of March, 2017.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

2

Such short notice is made necessary due to petitioner's looming release date.
4