Darnell v. State of Mississippi et al
Filing
11
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Michael P. Mills on 7/23/15. (cr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
ABERDEEN DIVISION
JERRY DARNELL
PETITIONER
v.
No. 1:15CV45-MPM-DAS
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, ET AL.
RESPONDENTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter comes before the court on the pro se petition of Jerry Darnell for a writ of habeas
corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The State has moved [10] to dismiss the petition for failure to state a
claim upon which relief could be granted. Darnell has not responded to the motion, and the deadline
to do so has expired. The matter is ripe for resolution. For the reasons set forth below, the State’s
motion [10] will be granted, and instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus will be dismissed.
Facts and Procedural Posture
Jerry Darnell is in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections and is
currently housed in the South Mississippi Correctional Institution. He was convicted in Lowndes
County Circuit Court for aggravated assault and is currently serving a sentence of fifteen years
with five years of post-release supervision. Darnell’s sentence was imposed by the Lowndes
County Circuit Court on November 21, 2014. Darnell’s appeal of his conviction and sentence
for aggravated assault is currently before the Mississippi Supreme Court in Cause No. 2014-KA1804.
In the instant case, however, Darnell has not challenged the conviction for aggravated
assault. Instead, he lists three Lowndes County Circuit Court cases as the convictions he
challenges in this case: 2010-512-CR1, 2011-0225-CR1H and a revocation action in 2012-0008CV1H . ECF Doc. 1, p. 1. Darnell is not, however, incarcerated under any of these convictions.
In paragraph 5 of the court’s form habeas corpus petition, which requires petitioner to list the
crimes he was convicted of and sentenced to in this case, he states: two counts of burglary and
one count of possession of stolen property. Darnell also adds in the petition that he was
sentenced to a term of five years and notes that his probation was revoked on November 18,
2010. In his prayer for relief, Darnell requests compensation in the amount of $999,999,999 for
“wrongful imprisonment, fraud/misconduct, [perjury], misrepresentation, and malicious
prosecution, tort by affirmative action.”
However, Darnell’s charges in Cause No. 2010-512 were dismissed on November 20,
2014. In addition, the charges in Cause No. 2011-00225-CR1H were dismissed without
prejudice on 31, 2011. Further, on March 2, 2012, in Lowndes County Circuit Court Cause No.
2012-0008-CV1H, Darnell’s probation revocation in an additional case, Cause No. 2008-0416CR1, was dismissed, and his probation was reinstated. According to the Lowndes County
Circuit Clerk’s Office, Darnell was originally sentenced on a guilty plea to felony fleeing from a
law enforcement officer and sentenced to five years’ probation. On November 28, 2010, a
revocation order was filed requiring Darnell to serve five years in the custody of the Mississippi
Department of Corrections.
On November 26, 2013, a “Discharge Order” from the Lowndes County Circuit Court
was filed terminating Darnell’s probation. Hence, all of the convictions and sentences, including
the probation revocation, that Darnell has challenged in the instant petition have been dismissed,
and Darnell is not currently in custody regarding any of those charges.
A federal court may only exercise jurisdiction over habeas corpus matters when the
person seeking relief is “in custody in violation of the constitution or laws or treaties of the
-2-
United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3) (emphasis added); 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). Darnell has not
met the “in custody” requirement, as his petition is directed to state court convictions and a
probation revocation – all of which have been dismissed. In addition, Darnell’s request for
$999,999,999.00 in damages is not a valid claim under 28 U.S.C. §2254. Preiser v. Rodriguez,
411 U.S.474, 494 (1973) (“In the case of a damages claim, habeas corpus is not an appropriate
or available federal remedy.”)
For these reasons, the motion by the State to dismiss the instant petition for a writ of
habeas corpus will be granted, and the instant petition will be dismissed for failure to state a
claim upon which relief could be granted. A final judgment consistent with this memorandum
opinion will issue today.
SO ORDERED, this, the 23rd day of July, 2015.
/s/ MICHAEL P. MILLS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
-3-
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?