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.

Keshi v. Childrey

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division

April 4, 2018

FILMON KESHI, Petitioner,
v.
JULIA CHILDREY, Respondent.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          AUDREY G. FLEISSIG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This matter is before the Court on the petition of Filmon Keshi for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Having carefully considered the petition, the Court has determined that it must be dismissed.

         Background

         Petitioner is presently incarcerated in the St. Louis County Justice Center. On February 10, 2017, he plead guilty in the 21st Judicial Circuit Court, St. Louis County, Missouri, to tampering with a motor vehicle. See State v. Keshi Filmon, [1] Case No. 16SL-CR07860-01 (21st Jud. Cir. Feb. 10, 2017). He received a one-year term of incarceration, to be served at the Department of Justice Services of St. Louis County. Id.

         In the instant petition, he alleges that he has satisfied his state sentence, and is presently being held pursuant to a federal detainer and an immigration detainer. He claims the detainers violate his First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, and he states that he has not been taken to appear before a judge. He also claims that he is possibly serving more time than he should, and states that he should be allowed to do “some time off my violation” or go home. (Docket No. 3 at 8). He asks this Court to “get [him] in front of a judge and tell [him] why [he] is still sitting in St. Louis County.” Id.

         Discussion

         Title 28 U.S.C. § 2241 provides, in relevant part:

(c) The writ of habeas corpus shall not extend to a prisoner unless -
(1) He is in custody under or by color of the authority of the United States or is committed for trial before some court thereof; or
(2) He is in custody for an act done or omitted in pursuance of an Act of Congress, or an order, process, judgment or decree of a court or judge of the United States; or
(3) He is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States; or
(4) He, being a citizen of a foreign state and domiciled therein is in custody for an act done or omitted under any alleged right, title, authority, privilege, protection, or exemption claimed under the commission, order or sanction of any foreign state, or under color thereof, the validity and effect of which depend upon the law of nations; or
(5) It is necessary to bring him into court to testify or for trial.

         Petitioner does not currently meet the federal “in custody” requirement of § 2241. The existence of a federal detainer and/or an immigration detainer alone is insufficient to render him in federal custody, and therefore, the Court presently lacks § 2241 habeas corpus jurisdiction to entertain any challenge to those detainers. See Campillo v. Sullivan, 853 F.2d 593, 595 (8th Cir. 1988) (it is well-established that an immigration detainer does not establish federal custody for habeas corpus purposes); Carter v. Uribe, 2010 WL 234803, *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2010) (dismissing § 2241 habeas petition brought by state prisoner for lack of jurisdiction on basis that U.S. Marshal's federal detainer letter did not place petitioner in federal custody for habeas corpus purposes); Powell v. U.S. Marshal Office, 2009 WL 839999, *4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2009) (“The Court has no habeas jurisdiction to entertain a challenge to possible ...


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.