Jackson v. State of Missouri

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioners motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. [Doc. 2] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioners petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuantto 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is DISMISSED without prejudice. Signed by District Judge Charles A. Shaw on 7/19/2013. (KSH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
ADRIENNE B. JACKSON,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Petitioner,
v.
STATE OF MISSOURI,
Respondent.

No. 4:13-CV-1279 NAB

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner appears to claim she is incarcerated on a probation violation charge
and that she has been in competency proceedings for a year. Petitioner further appears to claim that
she previously resided at a halfway house and that her probation was revoked when she solicited sex
from someone while partially nude. Plaintiff claims that she received psychiatric care for a year at
Fulton State Hospital, and she believes she is capable of living on her own now. Plaintiff requests
to be released so that she can make her own decisions about her life. Plaintiff states that she has not
brought any action in the state courts raising the issues in the instant petition.
Prisoners seeking relief under § 2241 must first exhaust state remedies before seeking federal
intervention. See, e.g., Braden v. 30th Judicial Cir. Ct. of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484, 489-91 (1973).
If petitioner is challenging a decision of the Missouri Board of Probation and Parole, there are three
avenues for exhaustion: by bringing a declaratory action against the Board, by filing a state petition
for habeas corpus, or by filing a petition for writ of mandamus. Wayne v. Missouri Bd. of Prob. and
Parole, 83 F.3d 994, 996-97 (8th Cir. 1996).

Because petitioner claims that she has not attempted to exhaust state remedies before
bringing this action, she is barred from federal habeas relief. As a result, the Court will dismiss this
action without prejudice.
Moreover, even if petitioner had exhausted state remedies, the Court would dismiss this
action for failure to state a claim. Rule 2 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires that a
petitioner specify all grounds for relief and the facts supporting each ground. There are no nonconclusory factual allegations in the complaint that would give rise to a finding that plaintiff is in
custody in violation of the Constitution. For this reason as well, federal habeas relief is not
warranted. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254, Rule 4.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
is GRANTED. [Doc. 2]
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is DISMISSED without prejudice.

CHARLES A. SHAW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 19th day of July, 2013.

-2-