Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrss
≡ Menu

Conviction mooted habeas claim regarding pretrial extradition issue

Andre Jackson v. Marc Clements, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 15-1145, 8/12/15

Jackson’s habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his extradition from Illinois to Wisconsin became moot once he was convicted in Wisconsin of the charges for which he was extradited.

The appropriate vehicle for a state pre-trial detainee to challenge his detention is § 2241. See Braden [v. 30th Judicial Cir. Ct. of Kentucky], 410 U.S. [484,] 488 [(1973)]; [United States ex rel.] Parish [v. Elrod], 589 F.2d [327,] 328 [(7th Cir. 1979]. Because a pre-trial detainee is not yet “in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court,” relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is not available. See Jacobs v. McCaughtry, 251 F.3d 596, 597–98 (7th Cir. 2001). Mr. Jackson was therefore correct that a §2241 petition was the appropriate means for a pre-trial detainee to challenge extradition. See Behr [v. Ramsey], 230 F.3d [268,] 270–71 [(7th Cir. 2000)].

Mr. Jackson, however, was no longer a pre-trial detainee when the district court ruled on his habeas petition. Mr. Jackson represents that he was a pre-trial detainee when he filed his petition but acknowledges that he was subsequently convicted in Wisconsin of identity theft—the crime that prompted the extradition. Once Mr. Jackson was convicted, the claims concerning his pre-trial confinement became moot. …. In order for federal courts to retain jurisdiction over a case, there must be an “actual, ongoing controvers[y],” and the absence of one renders a case moot and deprives the court of subject matter jurisdiction. …. Thus, when the district court issued its decision denying Mr. Jackson’s petition, it lacked jurisdiction to do so.

The judgment is therefore vacated and the case remanded to the district court with instructions to dismiss the petition as moot. (Slip op. at 3-4).

Facebooktwitterlinkedinmail
{ 0 comments… add one }

Leave a Comment