Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01793/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01793-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert Terrence Jackson
Appellant
State of Iowa
Appellee

Document Text:

1

 The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, United States District Judge for the Southern

District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1793 

___________

Robert Terrence Jackson, *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Southern District of Iowa.

*

State of Iowa, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: December 12, 2005

Filed: December 16, 2005

___________

Before BYE, BEAM, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Robert Terrence Jackson appeals the district court’s1

 dismissal of his habeas

petition. We affirm.

Jackson placed his petition in the prison mail system on October 19, 2003, and

it was filed with the district court on October 28, 2003. Jackson’s “maximum

discharge date” from supervised release was October 30, 2003. The district court, in

Appellate Case: 05-1793 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/16/2005 Entry ID: 1986702
-2-

review of Jackson’s habeas petition, found Jackson was discharged from his term of

supervised release on September 30, 2003. 

Federal jurisdiction exists over petitions for habeas relief only when such relief

is sought by persons “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of

the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3); 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). A federal district

court is without jurisdiction to address the merits of a section 2254 petition where the

habeas petitioner – who has served his state sentence and has been discharged from

supervised release – is no longer “in custody” for his state conviction. Charlton v.

Morris, 53 F.3d 929, 929 (8th Cir. 1995). Upon finding Jackson was discharged from

supervised release prior to the filing of his habeas petition, the district court dismissed

the petition. This appeal followed.

In habeas cases, we review the district court’s findings of fact for clear error

and its legal conclusions de novo. Reagan v. Norris, 365 F.3d 616, 621 (8th Cir.

2004). “A district court’s choice between two permissible views of evidence cannot

be clearly erroneous.” Estate of Davis v. Delo, 115 F.3d 1388, 1393-94 (8th Cir.

1997).

The district court based its finding Jackson was discharged from supervised

release on September 30, 2003, based upon a September 30, 2003, entry by Jackson’s

parole officer which notes the officer informed Jackson he was discharged from

parole, the file was purged, and the case closed. The entry also indicates the officer

had not received Jackson’s discharge papers as of September 30, 2003. 

Jackson does not challenge the accuracy or authenticity of the case note entry.

Instead, he asserts he was not discharged until he signed the discharge papers. We do

not find this argument compelling. Jackson was never informed his discharge from

Appellate Case: 05-1793 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/16/2005 Entry ID: 1986702
-3-

parole was dependent upon signing the discharge papers. Accordingly, we conclude

the district court’s finding Jackson was discharged from supervised release on

September 30, 2003, is not clearly erroneous. As such, the district court correctly

determined it did not have jurisdiction to entertain the habeas petition. We therefore

affirm the district court’s dismissal of Jackson’s habeas petition.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1793 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/16/2005 Entry ID: 1986702