Wilson v. State of Wisconsin
Filing
8
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Sharion Aycock on 8/20/18. (cr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
ABERDEEN DIVISION
DELMAR WILSON
PETITIONER
v.
No. 1:18CV81-SA-DAS
STATE OF WISCONSIN
RESPONDENT
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter comes before the court on the pro se petition of Delmar Wilson for a writ of
habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The court has considered the petition and holds that it should
be dismissed as moot.
Habeas Corpus Relief Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241
The writ of habeas corpus, a challenge to the legal authority under which a person may
be detained, is ancient. Duker, The English Origins of the Writ of Habeas Corpus: A Peculiar
Path to Fame, 53 N.Y.U.L.Rev. 983 (1978); Glass, Historical Aspects of Habeas Corpus, 9 St.
John's L.Rev. 55 (1934). It is “perhaps the most important writ known to the constitutional law
of England,” Secretary of State for Home Affairs v. O’Brien, A.C. 603, 609 (1923), and it is
equally significant in the United States. Article I, § 9, of the Constitution ensures that the right
of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, except when, in the case of rebellion or
invasion, public safety may require it. Habeas Corpus, 20 Fed. Prac. & Proc. Deskbook § 56.
Its use by the federal courts was authorized in Section14 of the Judiciary Act of 1789. Habeas
corpus principles developed over time in both English and American common law have since
been codified:
The statutory provisions on habeas corpus appear as sections 2241 to 2255 of the
1948 Judicial Code. The recodification of that year set out important procedural
limitations and additional procedural changes were added in 1966. The scope of the
writ, insofar as the statutory language is concerned, remained essentially the same,
however, until 1996, when Congress enacted the Antiterrorism and Effective Death
Penalty Act, placing severe restrictions on the issuance of the writ for state prisoners
and setting out special, new habeas corpus procedures for capital cases. The changes
made by the 1996 legislation are the end product of decades of debate about habeas
corpus.
Id. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a federal court may issue the writ when the petitioner is in state or
federal custody pursuant to something other than a judgment (such as pretrial detention, pretrial bond
order, etc.); § 2241 permits a federal court to order the discharge of any person held in violation of the
supreme law of the land. Frank v. Mangum, 237 U.S. 309, 311, 35 S. Ct. 582, 588, 59 L. Ed. 969
(1915).
Facts and Procedural Posture
Delmar Wilson was arrested in Mississippi on March 31, 2018, pursuant to a Governor’s
Warrant from the State of Wisconsin. He was placed in the Lee County Detention Center in Tupelo,
Mississippi, awaiting extradition to Wisconsin. He filed the instant petition for a writ of habeas
corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on May 9, 2018, alleging that he has been improperly held in pretrial
detention in violation of various requirements under the Uniform Extradition and Rendition Act.
According to his Notice [6] of Change of Pro Se Address, filed June 5, 2018, he has since been
transferred to the Kenosha County Detention Center in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Mr. Wilson seeks as
relief a hearing before this court and release from detention.
Discussion
As Mr. Wilson has been transferred to the custody of Wisconsin officials, this court is without
jurisdiction to order his release; thus the court need not hold a hearing on the matter. As such, the
instant petition must be dismissed as moot. If Mr. Wilson believes that his detention in Wisconsin is in
violation of the law, then he may seek relief in State or Federal court in that state.
-2-
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, the instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28
U.S.C. § 2241 will be dismissed as moot. A final judgment consistent with this memorandum opinion
will issue today.
SO ORDERED, this, the 20th day of August, 2018.
/s/ Sharion Aycock
U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE
-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?