Lofton v. Rasco et al

Filing 17

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Michael P. Mills on 8/7/18. (jtm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
OXFORD DIVISION
JERRY LYNN LOFTON
A/K/A GERRY LYNN LOFTON
v.

PETITIONER
No. 3:16CV173-MPM-RP

STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

RESPONDENT
MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter comes before the court on the pro se petition of Jerry Lynn Lofton for a writ of
habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The State has moved to dismiss the petition as moot. As Mr.
Lofton has now been convicted and remanded to the custody of the Mississippi Department of
Corrections, the State’s motion to dismiss will be granted and the instant petition 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.), permitting a federal court to order the discharge of any person held by the state or federal
government 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
Jerry Lynn Lofton filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §
2241 challenging the denial of bail during his pretrial detention. At that time, Lofton stated that
he was housed in the DeSoto County Adult Detention Facility awaiting trial on criminal charges.
According to the records of the DeSoto County Circuit Court and the Mississippi Department of
Corrections (MDOC), Lofton (listed in both DeSoto County and MDOC records as “Gerry
Lofton”) was convicted in DeSoto County Circuit Court Cause No. CR 2015-214-GCD for the
crime of first degree murder and was sentenced on November 29, 2016, to serve a term of life in
the custody of the MDOC.
Discussion
In light of Mr. Lofton’s conviction, the instant petition challenging pretrial bail will be
dismissed as moot. See Parker v. Estelle, 498 F.2d 625, 629 (5th Cir. 1974); see also StewardOdom v. United States, 162 F.3d 95, *1 (5th Cir. 1998) (unpub.) (“Because a judgment of
-2-

conviction has been rendered against Stewart-Odom, his bail issue is moot.”); United States v.
O’Shaughnessy, 772 F.2d 112, 113 (5th Cir. 1985) (§ 2255 case under Bail Reform Act where
court found pretrial bail issues were mooted by defendant’s conviction and sentence).
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, the instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus will be
DISMISSED as moot. A final judgment consistent with this memorandum opinion will issue today.
SO ORDERED, this, the 7th day of August, 2018.
/s/ MICHAEL P. MILLS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI

-3-