Terrell v. Sedgwick County
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ENTERED: Plaintiff's response 10 is liberally construed as a motion to alter or amend the judgment and is denied. The provisional grant of in forma pauperis is modified to grant in forma pauperis. Because this matter is construed as a petition for habeas corpus, no fee is assessed. Signed by U.S. Senior District Judge Sam A. Crow on 06/21/17. Mailed to pro se party Edward E. Terrell, Sr. by regular mail. (smnd)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
EDWARD E. TERRELL, SR.,
CASE NO. 17-3038-SAC-DJW
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s response (Doc.
#10), which the Court liberally construes as a motion to alter or amend
judgment. By an order entered on April 17, 2017, the Court liberally
construed this matter as a petition for habeas corpus challenging
petitioner’s conviction in Case No. 2002-CR-1700, and directed
plaintiff to show cause why the matter should not be dismissed as
untimely. Plaintiff did not respond within the time allowed, and the
Court dismissed the action on May 16, 2017.
Plaintiff’s response states that he received copies of the case
records ten years ago (Doc. #10, p. 1), and the case records attached
show that plaintiff completed his term of probation in the 2002 case
in January 2006 (id., pp. 6-7).
“The federal habeas statute gives the United States district
courts jurisdiction to entertain petitions for habeas relief only from
persons who are ‘in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws
or treaties of the United States.’” Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490
(1989)(quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3) and citing 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a)).
A petitioner is not “in custody” under a conviction after the sentence
imposed for it has fully expired at the time the petition is filed.
Id. at 491.
Because plaintiff did not seek habeas corpus review within the
one-year limitation period established in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1), and
because his sentence in Case No. 2002-CR-1700 is fully expired, he
may not now seek such relief.
IT IS, THEREFORE, BY THE COURT ORDERED plaintiff’s response (Doc.
#10 is liberally construed as a motion to alter or amend the judgment
and is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the provisional grant of in forma pauperis
is modified to grant in forma pauperis. Because this matter is
construed as a petition for habeas corpus, no fee is assessed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
This 21st day of June, 2017, at Topeka, Kansas.
S/ Sam A. Crow
SAM A. CROW
U.S. Senior District Judge
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?