Frazier v. Superintendent

Filing 3

OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING CASE for want of subject matter jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Theresa L Springmann on 12/23/2013. (lyb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
TYRONE FRAZIER,
Petitioner,
v.
SUPERINTENDENT,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CAUSE NO. 3:13-CV-1335-TS

OPINION AND ORDER
Tyrone Frazier, a pro se prisoner, filed this habeas corpus petition attempting to
challenge his guilty plea for Possession of Marijuana and his sentence of two years probation by
the Marion Superior Court on March 10, 1988. To obtain habeas corpus relief, a petitioner must
be “in custody.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). This requires that the “habeas petitioner be ‘in custody’
under the conviction or sentence under attack at the time his petition is filed.” Maleng v. Cook,
490 U.S. 488, 490–91 (1989). Here, Frazier’s probation on this conviction ended decades ago
and— though he is currently in prison—he is not “in custody” on this charge. Because he is not
“in custody” on the conviction he is attempting to challenge, this court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction. See Id. at 493.
For the foregoing reasons, this case is DISMISSED for want of subject matter
jurisdiction.
SO ORDERED on December 23, 2013.
s/ Theresa L. Springmann
THERESA L. SPRINGMANN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FORT WAYNE DIVISION