Gibbs v. State of Missouri

Filing 12

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that respondent Angela Dunbar is DISMISSED from this matter due to lack of jurisdiction over her person. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr. on 6/2/14. (CSG) Modified on 6/2/2014 (CSG).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
WILLIE LEE GIBBS,
Petitioner,
v.
CHRIS KOSTER, et al.,
Respondents,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:12CV1714 ACL

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon its own review. On September 20, 2012, petitioner
Willie Lee Gibbs filed an application for writ of habeas corpus in this Court, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254, concerning a 2009 conviction in St. Louis, Missouri. Presently before the Court
is the issue of whether the record reflects the proper respondent in this action, given that
petitioner is currently being housed in a federal correctional facility but is challenging his future
state custody.
Background
On August 5, 2009, a jury found petitioner guilty in St. Louis City, Missouri, of forcible
rape, first degree robbery and two counts of armed criminal action. He was sentenced September
17, 2009 to thirty (30) years in the Missouri Department of Corrections on each count, with
count 1 to run consecutive to counts 2, 3 and 4, equaling sixty (60) years total. At the time of his
state conviction and sentence, he was serving time on a federal sentence. He is currently
incarcerated at Butner Federal Correctional Institution (“FCI”) in Butner, North Carolina. His
federal sentence will expire in the year 2015; however, he is subject to a detainer by the State of
Missouri for the convictions related to his instant petition for writ of habeas corpus.

Because petitioner was an inmate at FCI Butner at the time the current lawsuit was filed,
Angela Dunbar, the Warden at Butner, was originally named as a respondent in this action, in
addition to the Missouri Attorney General, Chris Koster, pursuant to Rule 2(a) of the Rules
Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Court.
Discussion
The Supreme Court case of Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court, 410 U.S. 484, 495-499
(1973), first addressed an issue similar to the one before the Court. In Braden, an Alabama
inmate petitioned a federal court in Kentucky for a writ giving him relief from an indictment
pursuant to which Kentucky officials had lodged an interstate detainer against him. The
Supreme Court held that a state prisoner wishing to challenge a detainer filed by a different state
can file a habeas petition either in the current state of incarceration or in the state filing the
detainer. The Kentucky federal court had jurisdiction because petitioner’s Alabama custodian
“acts” as agent for the demanding state and the custodian state is presumably indifferent to the
resolution of the prisoner’s attack on the detainer. Id.
Despite the aforementioned, district courts are limited to granting habeas relief “within
their respective jurisdictions.” Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 442 (2004). And the Eighth
Circuit has explained that habeas corpus jurisdiction requires that “the district court have
jurisdiction over the petitioner’s custodian.” See Gravink v. United States, 549 F.2d 1152, 1154
(8th Cir. 1977). Thus, the Supreme Court later clarified, in Rumsfeld v. Padilla, that “Braden in
no way authorizes district courts to employ long-arm statutes to gain jurisdiction over custodians
who are outside their territorial jurisdiction.” Padilla, 542 U.S. at 445.
Petitioner’s current custodian, Angela Dunbar, located in Butner, North Carolina, is not
within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Thus, this Court lacks jurisdiction over

2

respondent Dunbar and she will be dismissed from this action. Chris Koster, the Missouri
Attorney General will remain the proper respondent in this action, inasmuch as petitioner is
challenging his future Missouri conviction and sentence.1
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that respondent Angela Dunbar is DISMISSED from this
matter due to lack of jurisdiction over her person.
Dated this 2nd day of June, 2014.

STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

Because this Court has determined that the “true custodian” in this case is Chris Koster, or the
official who has legal responsibility for the detainer placed on petitioner by the State of Missouri,
the Court is convinced that it has proper jurisdiction over the application for writ of habeas
corpus, regardless of where petitioner is currently detained. See, e.g., Braden, 410 U.S. at 494499.

3