Franklin v. Attorney General

Filing 2

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 8/14/13. (ARL)

Download PDF
Franklin v. Attorney General Doc. 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION GORDON FRANKLIN, JR., Petitioner, v. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 4:13CV1548 RWS MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before me on petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. This Court lacks jurisdiction to grant the writ, and I will summarily dismiss it. Petitioner was formerly confined at Springfield MCFP in Springfield, Missouri. However, before petitioner filed the instant case, he was released from confinement. District courts have jurisdiction to entertain petitions for habeas relief only from persons who are “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). The custody requirement is fulfilled when a petitioner is in custody “under the conviction or sentence under attack at the time his petition is filed.” Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490-91 (1989). Where, as is the case here, the sentence under challenge has fully expired, the custody requirement is not met. Id. As a result, the Court does not have jurisdiction over the petition, and it will be summarily dismissed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. Dated this 14th day of August, 2013. RODNEY W. SIPPEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE -2-

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?