Peeples v. Hurley

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 1 ORDERED that petitioner's application for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241 is DENIED AND DISMISSED, without prejudice, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. A separate Order of Dismissal shall accompany this Memorandum and Order. Signed by District Judge Jean C. Hamilton on 5/28/14. (CEL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
GREGORY PEEPLES, JR.,
Petitioner,
v.
JAMES HURLEY,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:14-CV-175-JCH

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on petitioner Gregory Peeples, Jr.'s pro se
application for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 2241. For the
following reasons, the Court will deny and dismiss the petition for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction.
The Petition
Gregory Peeples, Jr., a Missouri state inmate presently confined at the
Northeast Correctional Center, brings this § 2241 habeas action to challenge a
federal detainer pending against him. Petitioner maintains that the United States
Marshal filed a detainer with the Eastern Reception Diagnostic Correctional Center
relative to a judgment and conviction entered against him in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on February 29, 2008, ordering
1

petitioner to serve a term of imprisonment of forty-one months and two years of
supervised release. See United States v. Peeples, No. 4:07-CV-597-JCH (E.D.
Mo.). Petitioner is not challenging the validity of his state sentence or conviction.
Rather, he is challenging the legality of the federal detainer, claiming that he is
entitled to credit against his prospective federal sentence "for time spent in state
prison."
Discussion
Title 28 U.S.C. § 2241 provides in pertinent part:
(c) The writ of habeas corpus shall not extend to a prisoner
unless –
(1) He is in custody under or by color of the authority of
the United States or is committed for trial before some court
thereof; or
(2) He is in custody for an act done or omitted in
pursuance of an Act of Congress, or an order, process, judgment
or decree of a court or judge of the United States; or
(3) He is in custody in violation of the Constitution or
laws or treaties of the United States; or
(4) He, being a citizen of a foreign state and domiciled
therein is in custody for an act done or omitted under any alleged
right, title, authority, privilege, protection, or exemption claimed
under the commission, order or sanction of any foreign state, or
under color thereof, the validity and effect of which depend upon
the law of nations; or

2

(5) It is necessary to bring him into court to testify or for
trial.
Petitioner does not meet the federal "in custody" requirement of § 2241 at this
time; he currently is in state custody serving a state sentence for a state conviction.
The existence of the Marshal's detainer alone is not sufficient to render him in
federal custody, and therefore, the Court presently lacks § 2241 habeas corpus
jurisdiction to entertain petitioner's challenge to the detainer. See Carter v. Uribe,
2010 WL 234803, *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2010) (dismissing § 2241 habeas petition
brought by state prisoner for lack of jurisdiction on basis that U.S. Marshal's federal
detainer letter did not place petitioner in federal custody for habeas corpus
purposes); Powell v. U.S. Marshal Office, 2009 WL 839999, *4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 30,
2009) ("The Court has no habeas jurisdiction to entertain a challenge to possible
future federal custody that has yet to eventuate."); cf. Garcia v. Taylor, 40 F.3d 299,
303 (9th Cir. 1994) (a "bare detainer letter alone does not sufficiently place an alien
in INS custody to make habeas corpus available."). For these reasons, petitioner's
application for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 2241will be denied and
dismissed, without prejudice, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Accordingly,

3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner=s application for writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 2241 is DENIED AND DISMISSED, without
prejudice, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
A separate Order of Dismissal shall accompany this Memorandum and Order.
Dated this 28th day of May, 2014.

/s/Jean C. Hamilton
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4