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)

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

Dockets.Justia.com

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-