Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Anthony L. AUSTIN, also known as Wa'il Mansur Muhannad, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-10-10
Citations: 580 F. App'x 504
Docket Number: No. 14-1465
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Anthony L. AUSTIN, also known as Wa’il Mansur Muhannad, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 580
Pages: 504–505

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Anthony L. AUSTIN, also known as Wa’il Mansur Muhannad, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-1465.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 7, 2014.
Filed: Oct. 10, 2014.
Jan W. Sharp, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Omaha, NE, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Anthony L. Austin, Omaha, NE, pro se.
Alan Stoler, Omaha, NE, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before WOLLMAN, BYE, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Anthony Austin appeals the district court's order denying his motion for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, construed by the court as a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. Austin challenged the validity of a warrant and detainer issued against him by the United States Parole Commission, contending that the Parole Commission lacked authority to supervise him or treat him as a parolee. Following de novo review, we affirm the denial of relief, because the Parole Commission has not yet acted on the warrant that Austin claims is invalid. See Parrish v. Dayton, 761 F.3d 873, 875-76 (8th Cir.2014) (explaining ripeness). Accordingly, we modify the judgment to reflect that it is without prejudice to Austin's right to raise his challenge in the future, should the Parole Commission execute the warrant.
. The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska.