United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
TIMOTHY L. BECKWITH, Petitioner,
CHRIS KOSTER, Respondent,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
CATHERINE D. PERRY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before me on the petition of Timothy Beckwith for a
writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
Petitioner is no longer in state custody, so this action is
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
28, 2004, the State of Missouri charged petitioner with
several counts of statutory rape, child abuse, and use of a
child in sexual performance. Missouri v. Beckwith,
No. 2104R-02261-01 (St. Louis County). He pled guilty on
March 13, 2006. On May 26, 2006, the court sentenced him to
twenty-five years' imprisonment. He did not file an
appeal. Nor did he file a motion for postconviction relief.
the United States charged petitioner with production of child
pornography. United States v. Beckwith, No.
4:04-CR-493 RWS (E.D. Mo.). Petitioner pled guilty on March
2, 2006. The Court sentenced him to fifteen years'
imprisonment on May 25, 2006. He did not appeal. Nor he did
not file a motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
state court judgment specifies that his state sentence should
run concurrent to his federal sentence. Additionally, during
petitioner's federal sentencing hearing, the Hon. Rodney
W. Sippel, United States District Judge, stated that his
federal sentence would run concurrent to his state sentence.
United States v. Beckwith, No. 4:04-CR-493, Tr.
filed April 26, 2016.
allegations show that he served his state sentence before
being transferred to the Federal Bureau of Prisons. He is
currently incarcerated at USP Florence - High, in Florence
says that he did not file any appeals from either of his
judgments because he is schizophrenic and was mentally
incompetent to prepare any such filings.
instant petition, petitioner says he pled guilty in the state
case based on the promises of the court and his attorney that
his state sentence would be served concurrently with his
federal sentence. He claims that the BOP, however, is
refusing to honor the state court's order and is running
his federal sentence consecutive to his state
sentence. Therefore, he believes his current
incarceration is in violation of the Due Process Clause. He
further believes that his state counsel was ineffective for
recommending the plea, and he alleges that his plea was
courts have jurisdiction to entertain petitions for habeas
relief only from persons who are “in custody in
violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the
United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). The
custody requirement is fulfilled when a petitioner is in
custody “under the conviction or sentence under attack
at the time his petition is filed.” Maleng v.
Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490-91 (1989). Where, as is the case
here, the sentence under challenge has fully expired, the
custody requirement is not met. Id.; see Mays v.
Dinwiddie, 580 F.3d 1136, 1140-41 (10th Cir. 2009),
cert. denied, 130 S.Ct. 1022 (2009) (petitioner who
was still serving the longer of two concurrent sentences, but
had already completed serving the shorter of the two
concurrent sentences and the shorter sentence was not used to
enhance the longer sentence, was not “in custody”
for purposes of challenging the constitutionality of the
petitioner is not in the custody of the Missouri Department
of Corrections, the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the
petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing of the
denial of a constitutional right, which requires a
demonstration “that jurists of reason would find it
debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the
denial of a constitutional right.” Khaimov v.
Crist, 297 F.3d 783, 785 (8th Cir. 2002) (quotation
omitted). Thus, the Court will not issue a certificate of
appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for writ of habeas
corpus is ...