Oldcroft v. Koster

Filing 28

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Signed by District Judge Carol E. Jackson on 9/21/2015. (KMS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
ALLEN T. OLDCROFT,
Petitioner,
vs.
CHRIS KOSTER and D.R STEPHEN,
Respondents.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:13-CV-2231 (CEJ)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL
This matter is before the Court on the petition of Allen T. Oldcroft for a writ
of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
Petitioner is presently incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution in
Memphis, Tennessee. On August 31, 1998, he pled guilty to one count of forcible
rape in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Missouri and was sentenced to a fiveyear term of imprisonment, to be served concurrently with sentences in other
cases.
On January 13, 2012, the Missouri Department of Corrections placed
petitioner on parole status and transferred him to the custody of the United States
Marshals Service, pursuant to a detainer issued in connection with an 80-month
sentence of imprisonment imposed in a federal case. Resp. Ex. B at 2 [Doc. #15-2].
See United States v. Oldcroft, 4:10CR190 (HEA). On November 30, 2012, the
Missouri Department of Corrections released petitioner from parole status. Resp. B
at 4. On November 1, 2013, petitioner filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus.
He asserts that he is factually innocent of the crime, in light of newly discovered

DNA evidence, that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, and that the
prosecution violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).
District courts have jurisdiction to entertain petitions for writ of habeas
corpus only for persons “who are in custody . . . in violation of the Constitution or
laws or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C.. “The writ of habeas corpus
functions to grant relief from unlawful custody or imprisonment. Absent custody by
the authority against whom relief is sought, jurisdiction usually will not lie to grant
the requested writ.” Campillo v. Sullivan, 853 F.2d 593, 595 (8th Cir. 1988). Where
a state prisoner is no longer in state custody because he has completed serving his
state sentence, a petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 should be dismissed
for lack of jurisdiction. Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490-92 (1989); Charlton v.
Morris, 53 F.3d 929, 929 (8th Cir. 1985). The fact that the prior conviction may be
used to enhance the sentence imposed for subsequent crimes does not satisfy the
“in custody” requirement. Maleng, 490 U.S. at 492 (“The question presented by this
case is whether a habeas petitioner remains “in custody” under a conviction after
the sentence imposed for it has fully expired, merely because of the possibility that
the prior conviction will be used to enhance the sentences imposed for any
subsequent crimes of which he is convicted. We hold that he does not.”) The effect
of a prior conviction to enhance a sentence is a collateral consequence which does
“not give rise to jurisdiction to grant habeas relief.” Flittie v. Solem, 867 F.2d 1053,
1055 (8th Cir. 1988).
At the time petitioner filed the petition in this case, he had completed his
state sentence, was not on state parole, and he had begun service of his federal

2

sentence. Thus, petitioner cannot meet the “in custody” requirement of § 2254(a),
and the court lacks jurisdiction.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is dismissed for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction.

CAROL E. JACKSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 21st day of September, 2015.

3