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.

Goodson v. Derosa

April 24, 2006

MICHAEL C. GOODSON, PETITIONER,
v.
C.J. DEROSA, RESPONDENT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Simandle, District Judge

OPINION

This matter is presently before the Court upon the submission by Petitioner Michael C. Goodson [hereinafter "Petitioner"], a prisoner previously confined at the Federal Correctional Institution at Fort Dix, New Jersey, of a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 which sought an order from this Court directing the Attorney General of South Carolina to immediately resolve the pendency of two outstanding warrants issued in 1998 by a state court Magistrate in Columbia, South Carolina.

Respondent filed an answer to Petitioner's Writ of Habeas Corpus wherein it sought to have the motion dismissed on the basis that this Court lacked jurisdiction to consider the merits of Petitioner's claims. For the foregoing reasons, this Court will dismiss Petitioner's Writ of Habeas Corpus.

BACKGROUND

On September 26, 2002, Petitioner was sentenced in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina to a 41-month term of imprisonment for Making, Uttering, and Possessing Forged and Counterfeit Securities and Aiding and Abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 513(a)(2). Petitioner's projected release date with the application of Good Conduct Time under 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b) was August 28, 2004.

Prior to sentencing, a Presentence Investigation Report was prepared by the United States Probation Office. Information in the report provided that in 1998, arrest warrants for Petitioner had been issued in Columbia, South Carolina, with a disposition of "unserved." In January of 2003, the Inmate Systems Management Department at FCI Fort Dix sent a Detainer Action Letter to the Olympia Magistrate Court in Columbia, South Carolina, inquiring as to whether that court wished to lodge a detainer against Petitioner. The clerk's office of the Olympia Magistrate Court in Columbia South Carolina subsequently notified the Legal Instruments Examiner that they did not wish to have a detainer lodged against Petitioner. They further explained that the warrants were still pending, but that they did not extradite on the magistrate level.

Petitioner's § 2241 contended that during the fall of 2003, the Bureau of Prisons [hereinafter "BOP"] notified him of the outstanding warrants. Petitioner further contended that he thereafter submitted requests to the Olympia Magistrate Court for disposition of these outstanding warrants. Petitioner asserted that he had also written to the Attorney General for the State of South Carolina, without response. Petitioner argued that he was protected against prosecution on these outstanding charges by the South Carolina statute of limitations and that the pendency of the charges had resulted in his inability to participate in halfway house placement under BOP policy.*fn1 Petitioner requested, by way of relief pursuant to the instant 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition, that this Court "order the Attorney General of South Carolina to immediately resolve these [outstanding state] charges."

DISCUSSION

STANDARD OF REVIEW

A pro se pleading is held to less stringent standards than more formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). A pro se habeas petition and any supporting submissions must be construed liberally and with a measure of tolerance. See Royce v. Hahn, 151 F.3d 116, 118 (3d Cir. 1998); Lewis v. Attorney General, 878 F.2d 714, 721-22 (3d Cir. 1989); United States v. Brierley, 414 F.2d 552, 555 (3d Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 399 U.S. 912 (1970).

§ 2241 PETITIONS

The function of a writ of habeas corpus is to grant relief from unlawful custody or imprisonment. Campillo v. Sullivan, 853 F.2d 593, 595 (8th Cir. 1998). Section 2241 of Title 28 addresses "challeng[es to] the very facts or duration of [a prisoner's] physical imprisonment, [and where] the relief he seeks is a determination that he is entitled to immediate release or a speedier release from that imprisonment . . ." Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484-86, 500 (1973).

PROCEDURAL DEFECTS

A. The Relief Sought By Petitioner is Moot as no Case or Controversy Currently Exists because Petitioner was Released ...


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.