Source: https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-jersey/njdce/2:2016cv01091/330198/2
Timestamp: 2017-11-24 22:23:39
Document Index: 458501207

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2254', '§ 2254', '§ 2254', '§ 2254', '§ 2254', '§ 2254']

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: It is ORDERED that Petitioner shall, within 30 days of the date of entry of this Order, show cause in writing, in the manner directed in this Order, as to why the Petition should not be denied for failing to meet § 2254 for SHEPPARD v. POWELL et al :: Justia Dockets & Filings
Justia Dockets & Filings Third Circuit New Jersey New Jersey District Court SHEPPARD v. POWELL et al Filing 2
SHEPPARD v. POWELL et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: It is ORDERED that Petitioner shall, within 30 days of the date of entry of this Order, show cause in writing, in the manner directed in this Order, as to why the Petition should not be denied for failing to meet § 2254(a)'s "in custody" requirement. Signed by Judge Esther Salas on 6/29/2016. (seb)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY MARK C. SHEPPARD, Civil Action No. 16-1091 (ES) Petitioner, v. : MEMORANDUM AND ORDER JOHN POWELL, ET AL., Respondents. This matter having come before the Court on the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus of Petitioner Mark Sheppard, for reliefunder 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Court has reviewed the Petition. It appearing: 1. Upon the Court’s review, it appears that the Petition barred because Petitioner is not “in custody.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). 2. According to Petitioner himse1f, he was released from prison afler serving his sentence on September 23, 2015. (D.E. No. 1-1 at 1). He did not file the instant petition, however, until February 23, 2016. (D.E. No. 1). 3. Federal law requires a habeas petitioner be “in custody pursuant to the judgement of a State court.” § 2254(a). In construing the “in custody” requirement, the Supreme Court has held that a petitioner “cannot bring a federal habeas petition directed solely” at a conviction for which the sentence has already been served. Lackawanna Cnty Dist. Att y v. Coss, 532 U.S. 394, 401(2001); see also Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, (1989) (“While we have very liberally construed the ‘in custody’ requirement for purposes of federal habeas, we have never extended it to the situation where a habeas petitioner suffers no present restraint from a conviction.”); Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234 (1968) (holding that that once the sentence imposed for a conviction has completely expired, the collateral consequences of that conviction are not themselves sufficient to render an individual “in custody” for the purposes of a habeas attack upon it). Such appears to be the case here. 4. Because the Court is raising sua sponte the issue of Petitioner’s custodial status, the Court will afford Petitioner a chance to argue for an exception to the “in custody” requirement. Particularly, Petitioner may submit to this Court any arguments, supported by evidence, as to why the Court should entertain his petition after his sentence has been served. Petitioner may also raise any other argument as appropriate with regard to Petitioner’s custodial status. IT IS therefore on this c. / day of June 2016, ORDERED that Petitioner shall, within thirty (30) days of the date of entry of this Order, show cause in writing, in the manner directed above, as to why the Petition should not be denied for failing to meet § 2254(a)’s “in custody” requirement; it is further ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Order upon Plaintiff by regular mail. EsthçtSalas I— I d 2 U States Dij1de 2