Filed: Jun. 02, 2014
Latest Update: Jun. 02, 2014
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RODNEY W. SIPPEL, District Judge. Petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254. He alleges that the Missouri Board of Probation and Parole violated Missouri law when it denied him conditional release. He seeks immediate release from the South Central Correctional Center. Under 28 U.S.C. 2254(a), a district court may only entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus if the petitioner "is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treatie
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RODNEY W. SIPPEL, District Judge. Petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254. He alleges that the Missouri Board of Probation and Parole violated Missouri law when it denied him conditional release. He seeks immediate release from the South Central Correctional Center. Under 28 U.S.C. 2254(a), a district court may only entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus if the petitioner "is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties..
More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
RODNEY W. SIPPEL, District Judge.
Petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He alleges that the Missouri Board of Probation and Parole violated Missouri law when it denied him conditional release. He seeks immediate release from the South Central Correctional Center.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a), a district court may only entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus if the petitioner "is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." In other words, grounds that do not state a constitutional issue are not cognizable in a federal habeas petition. E.g. Gee v. Groose, 110 F.3d 1346, 1351-52 (8th Cir. 1997). Petitioner does not allege any constitutional issues or violations of federal law. As a result, the petition must be dismissed.
Finally, petitioner has failed to demonstrate that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a cognizable ground for relief. As a result, I will not issue a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No. 2] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no certificate of appealability be issued.
An Order of Dismissal will be filed separately.
