United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Western Division
RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION
The
following Recommended Disposition
(“Recommendation”) has been sent to United States
District Judge Billy Roy Wilson. You may file written
objections to all or part of this Recommendation. If you do
so, those objections must: (1) specifically explain the
factual and/or legal basis for your objection; and (2) be
received by the Clerk of this Court within fourteen (14) days
of the entry of this Recommendation. The failure to timely
file objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal
questions of fact.
I.
Introduction
On
September 14, 2018, Petitioner Terrence Jefferson
(“Jefferson”) filed a pro se § 2241
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.[1] Doc. 2. Liberally
construing his allegations, Jefferson claims that the
Prosecutor for the 20th Judicial District
wrongfully charged him with felony possession of
oxycodone when, in fact, he possessed only “fish tank
cleaner.” Doc. 2 at 5. By way of relief, he
requests this Court to order the dismissal of all of the
still pending charges. Doc. 2 at 5, 12, and
13.
As
explained below, all of the state criminal charges against
Jefferson have now been nolle prossed and he is no
longer in custody on any of those charges. Accordingly,
because the habeas claims Jefferson is attempting to raise in
this action are now moot, the Court recommends that
Jefferson's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be
dismissed, without prejudice.
II.
Discussion
In
reviewing a federal habeas petition, a court must summarily
deny relief “if it plainly appears from the petition
and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled
to relief.” Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254
Cases in the United States District Courts (applicable to
§ 2241 petitions under Rule 1(b)); 28 U.S.C. §
2243. Additionally, a court “may take judicial notice
of proceedings in other courts of record.” Rodic v.
Thistledown Racing Club, Inc., 615 F.2d 736, 738 (6th
Cir. 1980); see also Hood v. United States, 152 F.2d
431 (8th Cir. 1946) (federal district court may take judicial
notice of proceedings from another federal district court).
The
filings in State v. Jefferson, Faulkner County
Circuit Court No. 23CR-18-210, [2] conclusively establish that: (1)
On February 12, 2018, Jefferson was charged in a felony
information with one count of felony possession of oxycodone;
(2) After his first appearance, on March 19, 2018, Jefferson
was released on a secured bond; (3) On April 9, 2018,
Jefferson failed to appear at his arraignment; (4) On July
31, 2018, the trial court revoked Jefferson's bond; (5)
On August 21, 2018, the state amended the felony information
to add a charge for Jefferson's failure to appear at his
arraignment; and (6) On October 5, 2018, the Faulkner County
Prosecutor nolle prossed the drug possession charge,
Jefferson entered a negotiated plea of guilty to the failure
to appear charge, [3] and he was released from the Faulkner
County Detention Center on that date.[4]
Under
Article III, § 2 of the United States Constitution, the
exercise of judicial power depends upon the existence of a
case or controversy. DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S.
312, 316 (1974). This means that a petitioner must show that
he has suffered, or is threatened with, an actual injury
traceable to the defendant and likely to be redressed by a
favorable judicial decision. Spencer v. Kemna, 523
U.S. 1, 7 (1998). If a petitioner cannot show an existing
case or controversy through all the stages of his litigation,
his case becomes moot, depriving the court of its power to
act because there is nothing to remedy, even if the court
were disposed to do so. Id. at 18.
The
public record establishes that, on October 5, 2018, the
Prosecutor nolle prossed the drug possession charge
Jefferson challenges in his Petition. Even assuming Jefferson
had a colorable habeas claim under § 2241 when he filed
his Petition, the sole issue raised in his Petition -
whether the substance Jefferson possessed was oxycodone
or fish tank cleaner - has been resolved in his favor
and he is no longer in state custody on any of the charges
filed against him in Faulkner County. Thus, his claim is now
moot.[5]
Accordingly,
the Court recommends dismissing, without prejudice,
Jefferson's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.
III.
Conclusion
IT IS
THEREFORE RECOMMENDED, SUA SPONTE, that Petitioner
Terrence Jefferson's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
pursuant to § 2241, Doc. No. 2, be dismissed,
without prejudice.
IT IS
FURTHER RECOMMENDED that a Certificate of ...