Filed: Jun. 19, 2018
Latest Update: Jun. 19, 2018
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER JEAN C. HAMILTON , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on petitioner's application for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. Because it does not appear that petitioner is "in custody," the Court will dismiss this matter for lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner submitted an application for writ of habeas corpus on April 18, 2018. On May 14, 2018, the Court ordered petitioner to show cause as to why his petition should not be dismissed for lack of
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER JEAN C. HAMILTON , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on petitioner's application for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. Because it does not appear that petitioner is "in custody," the Court will dismiss this matter for lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner submitted an application for writ of habeas corpus on April 18, 2018. On May 14, 2018, the Court ordered petitioner to show cause as to why his petition should not be dismissed for lack of ..
More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
JEAN C. HAMILTON, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on petitioner's application for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Because it does not appear that petitioner is "in custody," the Court will dismiss this matter for lack of jurisdiction.
Petitioner submitted an application for writ of habeas corpus on April 18, 2018. On May 14, 2018, the Court ordered petitioner to show cause as to why his petition should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because it was apparent petitioner was not "in custody" within the meaning of § 2254(a). Petitioner has failed to respond to the Court's Memorandum and Order.
In order to obtain relief under § 2254, a petitioner must demonstrate that he is "in custody." The custody requirement is jurisdictional. E.g., Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490 (1989) (per curiam).1
As noted in the Court's prior Memorandum and Order, petitioner is not confined in an institution, and he does not allege that his freedom is currently restrained by the state. As a result, the Court must dismiss this action for lack of jurisdiction.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's application for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED AND DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction as petitioner is not in custody.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no certificate of appealability shall issue.
