Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Jackson v. Marques

United States District Court, D. Minnesota

April 23, 2019

Jermaine Terrell Jackson, Petitioner,
v.
Warden Marques, Respondent.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          LEO I. BRISBOIS, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         This matter comes before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge upon Petitioner Jermaine Terrell Jackson's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. [Docket No. 1]. This case has been referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Rule 72.1.

         For reasons discussed herein, the Court recommends that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, [Docket No. 1], be DENIED as moot and this action be DISMISSED with prejudice.

         I. Background

         At the time Petitioner filed the present writ of habeas corpus, he was incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institute at Sandstone, Minnesota. (Petition, [Docket No. 1], at 1).

         On May 22, 2001, Petitioner was convicted of conspiracy to distribute cocaine and cocaine base, as well as, the use of communication facility to facilitate a drug trafficking offense, and he was sentenced to an aggregated 240-month term of imprisonment. (Decl. of Jeffrey George, [Docket No. 13], at ¶ 7). During his term of incarceration, Petitioner was the subject of written disciplinary action twenty-seven times, including six incidents which ultimately resulted in a loss of good time credit. (Id. at ¶ 8, Exhibit C). These incidents appeared to have occurred while Petitioner was located in a “halfway house.” (Petition, [Docket No. 1], at 2).

         On September 14, 2018, Petitioner filed the present writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [Docket No. 1]. Petitioner argues that the Federal Bureau of Prisons inadequately investigated the disciplinary actions against him which resulted in good time credit being improperly taken from him. (See, Petition [Docket No. 1]). As relief, Petitioner seeks “all sanctions [be] dismissed and good time credit restored.” (Id. at 8).

         II. Jurisdiction

         Petitioner seeks relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Habeas corpus is the proper remedy for federal prisoners attacking the length or validity of their confinement. Kruger v. Erickson, 77 F.3d 1071, 1073 (8th Cir. 1996). “A petitioner may attack the execution of his sentence through § 2241 in the district where he is incarcerated . . . .” Matheny v. Morrison, 307 F.3d 709, 711 (8th Cir. 2002).

         At the time Petitioner filed the present Petition, he was incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institute at Sandstone, Minnesota. (Petition, [Docket No. 1], at 1). Petitioner challenges the length of his confinement by specifically challenging his loss of good time credit. Therefore, jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

         III. Jackson's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. [Docket No. 1].

         Article III of the United States Constitution allows Federal Courts to adjudicate only actual, ongoing cases or controversies. See, Am. United for Separation of Church and State v. Prison Fellowship Ministries, 509 F.3d 406, 420-21 (8th Cir. 2007). “This case-or-controversy requirement subsists through all stages of federal judicial proceedings, trial and appellate” and “[w]hen an action no longer satisfies the case or controversy requirement, the action is moot and a federal court must dismiss the action.” Potter v. Norwest Mortgage, Inc., 329 F.3d 608, 611 (8th Cir. 2003) (quotations omitted).

         The ongoing case-or-controversy requirement is no longer met if an event occurs, during the course of the proceedings, which precludes the court from granting any meaningful relief to the party who initiated the action. See, In re Sec. Life Ins. Co. of Am., 228 F.3d 865, 869-70 (8th Cir. 2000) (citing In re Grand Jury Subpoenas Duces Tecum, 78 F.3d 1307, 1310 (8th Cir. 1996) (“The existence of a live case or controversy is a constitutional prerequisite to the jurisdiction of federal courts . . . . [I]f during the pendency of an appeal, an event occurs which destroys the court's ability to render the prevailing party any effectual relief whatever, the appeal must be dismissed as moot.”) (citations and quotations omitted)). If it becomes impossible for the court to provide any further redress for the claims that have been raised, the case must be dismissed as moot. See, Lewis v. Cont'l Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477 (1990) (“To invoke the jurisdiction of a federal court, a litigant must have suffered, or be threatened with, an actual injury traceable to the defendant and likely to be redressed by a favorable decision.”).

         If a petitioner is challenging his criminal conviction, a writ of habeas corpus is not automatically mooted upon his release from custody as habeas relief could still serve the purpose of eliminating some of the “collateral consequences that attached to the conviction as a matter of law.” Spencer v. Kenma, 523 U.S. 1, 9 (1998) (citing Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234, 237 (1968)). Such “collateral consequences” include restrictions on the right to engage in certain types of businesses or professions, the right to vote, the right to own a gun, and the right to serve on a jury. See, Id. at 9. “However, a habeas petitioner cannot rely on the collateral consequences of his conviction to save ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.