Holleran v. Bernsen

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER..IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner=s application for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 2241 is DENIED and DISMISSED.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioners remaining motions are DENIED AS MOOT. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will not issue a certificate of appealability. An Order of Dismissal shall accompany this Memorandum and Order.. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 1/12/15. (MRS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
MATTHEW K. HOLLERAN,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Petitioner,
v.
HERBERT L. BERNSEN,
Respondent.

No. 4:14CV2051 SNLJ

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on petitioner=s pretrial application for writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 2241.

After review of the application for writ of habeas corpus

and the accompanying filings, petitioner’s application for writ of habeas corpus will be denied
and dismissed.
Petitioner is a pretrial detainee at the St. Louis County Justice Center awaiting removal to
some unnamed jurisdiction under some unidentified criminal warrant.

Petitioner has failed to

articulate in his petition, his amended petition, and his four accompanying filings brought to this
Court exactly what charge he is currently being held on, what jurisdiction he is purportedly being
held for, and what complaint or warrant he is currently being held on. Although petitioner has
attached a copy of a state court docket sheet to his amended petition, the docket sheet does not
convey any information relating to an accompanying charge or any identifying information about
a purported detainer.1

1

Although this Court has attempted to review Missouri.Case.Net, the docket referenced by
petitioner is sealed from the public, thus, the Court has not been able to ascertain any additional
information about petitioner’s charges.

Petitioner’s arguments in his briefs are somewhat convoluted, but he appears to be
arguing that the Missouri State Court has lost jurisdiction over him because they refused to
provide him with a “Governor’s Warrant” within the time-frame described in Mo.Rev.Stat. §
548.171. Such a claim is not cognizable in a writ of habeas corpus action, brought pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2241. A writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 shall not extend to a
prisoner unless he is in custody in violation of the “Constitution or laws or treaties of the United
States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a), (c)(3).

Petitioner’s claim is purely a state law claim and does

not involve either a federal law or a Constitutional violation.

As such, he is not entitled to relief

under § 2241.
Moreover, in his last brief before this Court [Doc. #8], petitioner admits that he was
served on December 19, 2014, with what appeared to be a “Governor’s Warrant.” Even
assuming that petitioner was correct in his assertion that at some point he was held illegally by
the State because he was “held over” on a “fugitive warrant” or some other kind of unnamed
warrant that was improperly extended, the fact that his restraint might have been illegal for a
period of time does not entitle him to a discharge from custody now, if in the meantime the
illegality of the restraint was removed and he is now imprisoned lawfully under the “Governor’s
Warrant.” See Lombardo v. Tozer, 264 S.W.2d 376, 378-79 (Mo. 1954).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner=s application for writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 2241 is DENIED and DISMISSED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s remaining motions are DENIED AS
MOOT.

2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will not issue a certificate of appealability.
An Order of Dismissal shall accompany this Memorandum and Order.
Dated this 12th

day of January, 2015.

STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3