Mosby v. State of Missouri

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's application for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is DENIED AND DISMISSED. 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 Rodney W. Sippel on 9/9/16. (CAR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
MARCUS MOSBY,
Petitioner,
v.
STATE OF MISSOURI,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:16-CV-1131 RWS

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on petitioner=s application for writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.1 The petition will be summarily dismissed.
Petitioner is currently incarcerated at Northwest Correctional Complex at Tiptonville,
Tennessee.

He claims that on May 5, 2010, a U.S. Marshal placed an interstate detainer against

petitioner with the Tennessee Department of Corrections, originating out of St. Louis County
Criminal Court.
According to Missouri.Case.Net, on March 1, 2016, petitioner was charged by St. Louis
Metropolitan Police Department with felony theft/stealing property worth over $500 or more but
less than $25,000. Petitioner requests that this Court clear the interstate detainer because it is
affecting his security status, “preventing him from being housed in a less restrictive prison
setting such as a minimum security facility.” The petition contains no other ground for relief.
1

Petitioner has titled his application, “Motion to Quash Detainer.” The Court presumes petitioner
is bringing his application pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 only because he has brought his petition in
the district in which the detainer originated. See Braden v. 20th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky,
410 U.S. 484, 494-96 (1973); Word v. North Carolina, 406 F.2d 352, 255-56 (4th Cir. 1969). If
petitioner were seeking relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, he would have had to have brought his
petition in the district where he is currently confined, Tiptonville, Tennessee.
1

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing ' 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts provides
that a district court shall summarily dismiss a habeas petition if it plainly appears that the
petitioner is not entitled to relief.
The issuance of a detainer is an act of the state based on the state’s law and process.
Esposito v. Mintz, 726 F.2d 371, 373 (7th Cir. 1984). Therefore, principles of comity and
federalism limit the Court’s jurisdiction to review only complaints that a state detainer has had
adverse effects on the conditions of the petitioner’s confinement. Norris v. State of Georgia, 522
F.2d 1006, 1012 (4th Cir. 1975).
Although petitioner states in a conclusory manner that he is unable to move to a
minimum security facility as a result of the detainer, this is not an allegation, in and of itself, that
states a conditions of confinement claim. Rather, petitioner is requesting a move from one prison
to another with a lesser security status. This Court cannot assist him with such a request.
Moreover, there is no indication that petitioner has properly exhausted his state remedies prior to
bringing his claim to this Court.
In order to properly bring his claims to this Court, petitioner must first present his issues
to the state courts Aeither by direct appeal or by petitioning for a writ of habeas corpus under
state law.@ Cain v. Petrovsky, 798 F.2d 1194, 1195 (8th Cir. 1986). Such exhaustion of state
remedies Ais necessary before this petition properly may be entertained.@ Id. Petitioner has not
exhausted these state remedies.2 As a result, the Court will summarily dismiss the petition.
Accordingly,

2

The Court has searched Missouri.Case.Net to analyze whether petitioner has brought his claims
in Missouri state courts prior to bringing them in this Court. The Court has found no evidence of
exhaustion.
2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner=s application for writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is DENIED AND DISMISSED.
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 9th day of September, 2016.

RODNEY W. SIPPEL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3