Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-15-01145/USCOURTS-ca7-15-01145-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

In the 

United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ 

No. 15-1145 

ANDRE JACKSON, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v.

MARC CLEMENTS, 

Warden, Dodge Correctional 

Institution, Waupun, WI 

Respondent-Appellee. 

____________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of Wisconsin. 

No. 2:14-cv-01182-WEC — William E. Callahan, Jr., Magistrate Judge. 

____________________ 

SUBMITTED JUNE 15, 2015 — AUGUST 12, 2015 

____________________ 

Before FLAUM, RIPPLE, and MANION, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM. Andre Jackson, currently a Wisconsin 

prisoner, appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for 

a writ of habeas corpus challenging his extradition from 

Illinois to Wisconsin. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241. But Mr. Jackson 

was no longer a pre-trial detainee when the district court 

ruled on the merits of his petition, and, thus, relief under 

Case: 15-1145 Document: 23 Filed: 08/12/2015 Pages: 4
2 No. 15-1145 

§ 2241 was no longer available to him. Accordingly we 

vacate the judgment and remand for the district court to 

dismiss the petition as moot. 

Mr. Jackson was serving an eighteen month sentence in 

Illinois—the details of which are not contained in the 

record—when he was extradited to Wisconsin on a 

Governor’s Warrant of Arrest signed by the governor of 

Illinois. See 725 ILCS 225/7. He was wanted in Wisconsin on 

charges of identity theft. See WIS. STAT. § 943.203(2)(a). Once 

in Wisconsin, Mr. Jackson filed in the Northern District of 

Illinois a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under § 2241 

challenging the extradition. The Illinois court transferred the 

petition to the Eastern District of Wisconsin because, by that 

time, Jackson’s custodian was in that district, making it the 

proper venue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a); Braden v. 30th Judicial 

Cir. Ct. of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484, 494–95 (1973); Moore v. 

Olson, 368 F.3d 757, 758 (7th Cir. 2004). 

Mr. Jackson’s petition argued that Wisconsin lacked 

authority to prosecute him because the extradition was 

invalid. Specifically, he complained that he was transferred 

to Wisconsin before a scheduled hearing in Illinois on the 

validity of the warrant in violation of the Uniform Criminal 

Extradition Act, which both Illinois and Wisconsin have 

adopted. See 725 ILCS 225/10; WIS. STAT. § 976.03; Cuyler v. 

Adams, 449 U.S. 433, 443 (1981); Coungeris v. Sheahan, 11 F.3d 

726, 728 (7th Cir. 1993). The district court denied Mr. 

Jackson’s petition, finding that he had not shown any 

“special circumstances” necessitating relief under § 2241 

before Mr. Jackson had exhausted state remedies. See Neville 

v. Cavanagh, 611 F.2d 673, 675 (7th Cir. 1979); United States ex 

rel. Parish v. Elrod, 589 F.2d 327, 329 (7th Cir. 1979). While 

Case: 15-1145 Document: 23 Filed: 08/12/2015 Pages: 4
No. 15-1145 3 

analyzing the existence of special circumstances, the district 

court found that Mr. Jackson had been convicted on the 

Wisconsin charges, was currently serving a sentence there, 

and could pursue his claims on appeal or in a postconviction 

petition. 

Mr. Jackson filed a timely notice of appeal and request 

for a certificate of appealability. Although state pre-trial 

detainees who are detained pursuant to a state court process 

must secure a certificate of appealability, see 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A), Mr. Jackson is not challenging detention 

authorized by a state court. Instead, he is challenging 

detention authorized by the executive, and thus a certificate 

of appealability is not required. See Evans v. Circuit Court of 

Cook Cnty., Ill., 569 F.3d 665, 666 (7th Cir. 2009); Behr v. 

Ramsey, 230 F.3d 268, 270 (7th Cir. 2000). Mr. Jackson may 

therefore proceed to challenge the district court’s ruling 

directly. 

The appropriate vehicle for a state pre-trial detainee to 

challenge his detention is § 2241. See Braden, 410 U.S. at 488; 

Parish, 589 F.2d at 328. 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, 230 F.3d at 270–71. 

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 

Case: 15-1145 Document: 23 Filed: 08/12/2015 Pages: 4
4 No. 15-1145 

prompted the extradition. Once Mr. Jackson was convicted, 

the claims concerning his pre-trial confinement became 

moot. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 228–29 (5th Cir. 1993) 

(“[C]laims for federal habeas relief for pretrial issues are 

mooted by Yohey's subsequent conviction.”); Fassler v. 

United States, 858 F.2d 1016, 1018 (5th Cir. 1988); Thorne v. 

Warden, Brooklyn House of Det. for Men, 479 F.2d 297, 299 (2d 

Cir. 1973); Medina v. People of State of Cal., 429 F.2d 1392, 1393 

(9th Cir. 1970). 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. Fed'n of 

Adver. Indus. Representatives, Inc. v. City of Chicago, 326 F.3d 

924, 929 (7th Cir. 2003) (quoting Stotts v. Cmty. Unit Sch. Dist. 

No. 1, 230 F.3d 989, 990–91 (7th Cir.2000)); see also Damasco v. 

Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 894 (7th Cir. 2011); Pakovich v. 

Verizon LTD Plan, 653 F.3d 488, 492 (7th Cir. 2011). 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. 

Case: 15-1145 Document: 23 Filed: 08/12/2015 Pages: 4