SITTERLE v. STATE OF FLORIDA, USA et al

Filing 2

OPINION filed. Signed by Judge Freda L. Wolfson on 8/4/2014. (eaj)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
NANCY B. SITTERLE,

Civil Action No. 14-4717 (FLW)

Petitioner,
v.

OPINION

STATE OF FLORIDA,
Respondent.

APPEARANCES:
NANCY B. SITTERLE
c/o Comfort Inn
3720 Brunswick Pike, Rt. 1 North
Lawrence Township, NJ 08648
Petitioner Pro se
WOLFSON, District Judge:
Nancy B. Sitterle filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. ' 2254,
accompanied by three exhibits, challenging her detention from April 3, 2014, through June 27,
2014, at the Sarasota Sheriff’s Office, Corrections Division, in Florida. Having thoroughly
reviewed Petitioner=s submissions, the Court summarily dismisses the Petition, see 28 U.S.C. '
2254 Rule 4, and declines to issue a certificate of appealability, see 28 U.S.C. ' 2253(c).
I. BACKGROUND
The Petition and attachments indicate that Ms. Sitterle was detained at the Sarasota
Sheriff’s Office Corrections Division from April 3, 2014, through June 27, 2014, presumably on
the charge of resisting arrest in the matter entitled State of Florida v. Nancy B. Sitterle, Case No.
2014MM006339SC, and that on June 27, 2014, Judge Maryann Boehm, Circuit Court for Sarasota

County, Florida, determined that she was incompetent to proceed and ordered her release. (Pet.,
attachment, ECF No. 1 at 31.) According to the docket, Ms. Sitterle’s present address is the
Comfort Inn in Lawrence Township, New Jersey. The Petition raises four grounds for relief:
GROUND ONE: Unconstitutional Search and Seizure.
GROUND TWO: False Arrest.
GROUND THREE: Unjust Detention.
GROUND FOUR: Unconstitutional Conditions.
(Pet., ECF No. 1 at 5-9.)
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Habeas Rule 4 requires the Court to examine a petition prior to ordering an answer and to
summarily dismiss the petition if Ait plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits
that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.@ 28 U.S.C. ' 2254 Rule 4. Thus,
AFederal courts are authorized to dismiss summarily any habeas petition that appears legally
insufficient on its face.@ McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994); see also United States v.
Thomas, 221 F.3d 430, 437 (3d Cir. 2000); Siers v. Ryan, 773 F.3d 37, 45 (3d Cir. 1985).
Dismissal without the filing of an answer has been found warranted when “it appears on the face of
the petition that petitioner is not entitled to [habeas] relief.” Siers, 773 F.2d at 45; see also United
States v. Thomas, 221 F.3d 430, 437 (3d Cir. 2000) (habeas petition may be dismissed where
“none of the grounds alleged in the petition would entitle [petitioner] to [habeas] relief”).

2

III. DISCUSSION
A. Jurisdiction
Section 2254 of Title 28 of the United States Code confers jurisdiction on district courts to
issue “writs of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a state
court . . . on the ground that [s]he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of
the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). To invoke habeas corpus review by a federal court, the
petitioner must satisfy two jurisdictional requirements: the status requirement that the petition be
Ain behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court,@ and the substance
requirement that the petition challenge the legality of that custody on the ground that it is Ain
violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.@ 28 U.S.C. ' 2254(a); see
also Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490 (1989).
The federal habeas statute requires that the petitioner be in custody Aunder the conviction
or sentence under attack at the time his petition is filed.@ Lee v. Stickman, 357 F.3d 338, 342 (3d
Cir. 2004) (quoting Maleng, 490 U.S. at 490-91); see also Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1 (1998).
The petitioner does not remain Ain custody@ after the sentence has fully expired and the petitioner
has been released from custody. See Maleng, 490 U.S. at 493 (AWhile we have very liberally
construed the >in custody= requirement for purposes of federal habeas, we have never extended it to
the situation where a habeas petitioner suffers no present restraint from a conviction@); see also
Lackawanna County Dist. Attorney v. Coss, 532 U.S. 394, 401 (2001); Drakes v. INS, 330 F.3d
600 (3d Cir. 2003); United States v. Thomas, 42 F.3d at 824.
In this case, the face of the Petition and the application to proceed in forma pauperis
establish that Ms. Sitterle was detained at the Sarasota County Sheriff’s Office on April 3, 2014,
3

and that she was released from custody on June 27, 2014.

Because Ms. Sitterle was not Ain

custody@ at the time the Petition was filed, i.e., July 29, 2014, this Court lacks jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 2254. This Court will dismiss the Petition for lack of jurisdiction.1
B. Certificate of Appealability
The Court denies a certificate of appealability because Petitioner has not made Aa
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right@ under 28 U.S.C. ' 2253(c)(2). See
Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003).
III. CONCLUSION
The Court dismisses the Petition and denies a certificate of appealability.

s/Freda L. Wolfson
FREDA L. WOLFSON, U.S.D.J.

Dated:

August 4, 2014

1

Ms. Sitterle appears to claim that her arrest and a search violated the Fourth Amendment, and that
the conditions of her confinement deprived her of a liberty interest protected by the Fourteenth
Amendment. Such claims may be cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Muhammad v. Close,
540 U.S. 749, 750 (2004) (“Challenges to the validity of any confinement or to particulars
affecting its duration are the province of habeas corpus . . . [and] requests for relief turning on
circumstances of confinement may be presented in a § 1983 action.”). However, this Court will
not recharacterize the present § 2254 Petition as a complaint for damages and other relief under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 for several reasons. For example, Ms. Sitterle does not name as defendants the
persons who were personally involved in the alleged violation of her Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendment rights. Moreover, as the alleged events occurred in Sarasota, Florida, and the
defendants presumably reside in Florida, the proper venue for a civil rights complaint under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 would be the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Sam M.
Gibbons U.S. Courthouse, 801, North Florida Avenue, Second Floor, Tampa, Florida 33602. See
28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) and (b)(2).
4