Noland v. Attorney General of Commonwealth et al
Filing
6
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: It is ordered, 1) 2 Petition for Writ of Habeas Copurs is DENIED. 2) Fayette County Sheriff's 5 Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. 3) Court will enter an appropriate judgment. Signed by Judge Jennifer B Coffman on 8/4/2011. (SCD)cc: COR,Pro Se Petitioner(via US Mail)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION AT LEXINGTON
LEON ROZELL NOLAND, JR.,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Petitioner,
V.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
COMMONWEALTH, et. al.,
Respondents.
Civil Action No. 11-61-JBC
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER
**** **** **** ****
On January 19, 2011, petitioner Leon Rozell Noland, Jr., filed a “Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus Pursuant to KRS 419.020 and 28 § 2241, violation of Extradition Act” in
the Fayette Circuit Court of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, captioned Leon R. Noland,
Jr. v. Attorney General of Commonwealth, Sheriff, Governor of Kentucky, U.S. Attorney
General, and U.S. Marshals, Civil Action No. 10-CI-7156. [R. 2-1].
In his petition, Noland alleges that on November 3, 2009, he was arrested by police
officers employed by the city of Richmond, Kentucky, to answer to state charges pending
against him in Somerset and Richmond, Kentucky. On November 12, 2009, he was
transferred to the custody of federal officials to face federal criminal charges pending
against him in United States v. Noland, No. 5:09-cr-00176-JBC (E.D. Ky. 2009). Noland
argues that because no extradition proceedings occurred under Kentucky’s enactment of
the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act (“UCEA”), KRS 440.370, authorizing the transfer of
custody, he is entitled under Kentucky’s habeas statute, KRS 419.020, to the dismissal of
the federal charges. [R. 2-1 at 3-4]
On February 8, 2011, the Attorney General of the United States and the United
States Marshals Service filed a Notice of Removal to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1441(b) and § 1442(a)(1). [R. 2] These respondents assert that the relief sought in the
petition is in the nature of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 as it seeks release from
custody from pending federal criminal charges. [R. 2 at 1] In their response to the petition,
the respondents challenge the petition on numerous procedural grounds: that neither
federal official is a proper respondent; Noland has not exhausted his available remedies;
Noland has raised this identical claim in his federal criminal case; and a pretrial detainee
may not seek release from federal custody from a state court. [R. 4] Fayette County
Sheriff Kathy Witt has filed a separate motion to dismiss the petition on the ground that she
lacks custody of the petitioner to grant the only relief requested of her, to produce Noland
to the Court. [R. 5] Noland has not filed any response to either document.
Setting aside for the moment the numerous procedural objections to Noland’s claim,
the Court will deny the petition on the most fundamental ground: it is substantively
meritless. The United States of America is not a “state” within the meaning of the UCEA
because it does not constitute “any other state or territory, organized or unorganized, of the
United States of America.” K.R.S. 440.160. Accordingly, “[t]his statute creates no right,
however, where the receiving jurisdiction is the United States. ... the protections of [the]
UCEA only apply to transfers between actual states of the Union.” Trafny v. United States,
311 F. App’x 92, 94 (10th Cir. 2009) (denying relief under identical language found in
Utah’s enactment of the UCEA); Martin v. Pittman, 244 F. App’x 597, 602 (5th Cir. 2007)
(“By its express terms, the UCEA ... applies only to transfers between the several states,
e.g., Pennsylvania to New Jersey in Cuyler. Unlike the IADA, the UCEA's definition of
‘State’ does not include the federal government.”). The Court will therefore deny the
petition and grant the Fayette County’s Sheriff’s motion to dismiss.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
1.
Noland’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus [R. 2] is DENIED.
2.
The Fayette County Sheriff’s motion to dismiss [R. 5] is GRANTED.
3.
The Court will enter an appropriate judgment.
Signed on August 4, 2011
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?