Johnson v. St. Clair County Sheriff's Department

Filing 4

ORDER DISMISSING CASE with prejudice. Signed by Chief Judge David R. Herndon on 4/18/2014. (tjk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
LENNIL L. JOHNSON,
No. 27826,
Petitioner,
vs.

Case No. 14-cv-00387-DRH

ST. CLAIR COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPT.,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
HERNDON, Chief Judge:
Petitioner Lennil L. Johnson, having been held in the St. Clair County Jail
for more than 120 days on criminal charges without a trial, has filed a petition
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 seeking immediate release. Petitioner contends his
continued custody violates his right to due process under the Illinois Speedy Trial
Act, 725 ILCS 5/103-5.
This case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of the petition
pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in United States
District Courts.

Rule 4 provides that upon preliminary consideration by the

district court judge, “[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 1(b)
of those Rules gives this Court the authority to apply the rules to other habeas
corpus cases, such as those under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
Page 1 of 4

As a preliminary matter, it is noted that the St. Clair County Sheriff’s
Department is named as the sole respondent. The proper respondent in a habeas
corpus proceeding is the person who has immediate custody over the petitioner.
28 U.S.C. § 2242; Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 434–35 (2004); Rules 2(a)
and (b) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District
Courts. Consequently, the Sheriff, not the Sheriff’s Department, is the proper
respondent. See Bridges v. Chambers, 425 F.3d 1048, 1049 (7th Cir. 2005) (any
respondent who is not the prisoner’s custodian should be dropped from the
action).

This error can, of course, be remedied easily, but the petition is

otherwise flawed and must be dismissed.
In the interest of comity between federal and state courts, a habeas
petitioner must exhaust his state court remedies before seeking relief in federal
court. Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484, 490-92
(1973); Neville v. Cavanaugh, 611 F.2d 673, 675 (7th Cir. 1979). In order to
exhaust a claim, a federal habeas petitioner must provide the state courts with an
opportunity to resolve his constitutional challenge “by invoking one complete
round of the state’s established appellate review process.” O'Sullivan v. Boerckel,
526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999). According to the petition, Johnson has presented his
argument to the Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County,
Illinois, as well as the Illinois Judicial Inquiry Board and the Attorney Registration
and Disciplinary Commission. After no success in the Circuit Court, there is no
indication petitioner proceeded to the appellate court or the Supreme Court of

Page 2 of 4

Illinois.

Thus, it does not appear that petitioner has exhausted his state

remedies. Regardless, the petition fails on its merits.
Pursuant to 2241(c)(3), federal courts have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §
2241(c)(3) to grant a writ to a pretrial detainee in state custody.

Neville v.

Cavanagh, 611 F.2d 673, 674 (7th Cir. 1979) (citing Braden v. 30th Judicial
Circuit Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484 (1973)). However, a violation of a state
statutory right, such as 725 ILCS 5/103-5, is not a basis for habeas relief.
The only basis for granting federal habeas relief is a violation of
federal statutory or constitutional law. Mosley v. Moran, 798 F.2d
182, 185 (7th Cir. 1986). “Federal courts hold no supervisory
authority over state judicial proceedings and may intervene only to
correct wrongs of constitutional dimension.” Smith v. Phillips, 455
U.S. 209, 221 (1982).
Cole v. Young, 817 F.2d 412, 416 (7th Cir. 1987). Petitioner does not reference
the Sixth Amendment, let alone offer a federal constitutional argument.

See

United States v. Loera, 565 F.3d 406, 412 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 558 U.S. 1035
(2009) (despite the Sixth Amendment being mentioned in the petition, no
argument was presented; rather, the petition rested on state law, warranting
dismissal).
Lastly, the issue appears to be moot, in that petitioner has filed a change of
address notification indicating that he is no longer in custody; rather his new
address of record is a residence discussed in the documentation attached to the
petition.

Page 3 of 4

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the petition for writ of habeas corpus
is DISMISSED with prejudice.

This action is closed and judgment shall be

entered accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 18th day of April, 2014.

Digitally signed by
David R. Herndon
Date: 2014.04.18
10:34:03 -05'00'
Chief Judge
United States District Court

Page 4 of 4