Filed: Apr. 02, 2014
Latest Update: Apr. 02, 2014
Summary: OPINION & ORDER Resolving Docs. 39 , 41 , 42 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 50 , and 51 JAMES S. GWIN, District Judge. Petitioner Michael C. Tierney filed his pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254. 1 Respondent says the petition should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 2 Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Baughman's Report and Recommendation recommending that the Court dismiss Tierney's petition in its entirety. 3 For the reasons stated below, the Court ADO
Summary: OPINION & ORDER Resolving Docs. 39 , 41 , 42 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 50 , and 51 JAMES S. GWIN, District Judge. Petitioner Michael C. Tierney filed his pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254. 1 Respondent says the petition should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 2 Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Baughman's Report and Recommendation recommending that the Court dismiss Tierney's petition in its entirety. 3 For the reasons stated below, the Court ADOP..
More
OPINION & ORDER Resolving Docs. 39, 41, 42, 46, 47, 48, 50, and 51
JAMES S. GWIN, District Judge.
Petitioner Michael C. Tierney filed his pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.1 Respondent says the petition should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.2 Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Baughman's Report and Recommendation recommending that the Court dismiss Tierney's petition in its entirety.3 For the reasons stated below, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation and DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE the petition.4
To invoke a federal district court's jurisdiction to review a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, a petitioner must be "a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court . . . in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States."5 The petitioner must be in custody under the conviction or sentence at issue at the time the habeas petition was filed.6 A petitioner is not in custody after the petitioner's sentence has been fully discharged merely because the prior conviction was used to enhance the sentence imposed for a subsequent crime.7
In 2000, Petitioner Tierney was convicted in Ohio state court for theft, safecracking, and breaking and entering. He was sentenced to 30 months.8 After his direct appeal, on June 13, 2002, Tierney was re-sentenced to 17 months.9 As a result of his shorter sentence and credit for time served, Tierney was relased subject to any outstanding warrants or orders from the parole board.10 On September 20, 2011, Petitioner Tierney filed his pro se petition for habeas corpus under 18 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his 2000 conviction because that conviction enhanced the sentence he received in Florida.11
Thus, Tierney was not "in custody" at the time of filing the instant petition for purposes of federal habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) for either the 2000 original judgment of conviction or the 2002 re-sentencing judgment of conviction. Accordingly, the petition should be dismissed
The Court notes that Petitioner Tierney's reliance on Lackawanna County. Dist. Attorney v. Coss is misplaced.12 In this case, the Supreme Court held a prisoner is "in custody" for habeas jurisdiction when a § 2254 petition asserts a challenge to a present sentence that was enhanced by an allegedly invalid prior conviction.13 Here Petitioner Tierney does not challenge his present sentence. Rather he challenges his past sentence imposed in 2000. Thus, this case is inapplicable.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court OVERRULES Petitioner's objections, ADOPTS the recommendations of Magistrate Judge Baughman, and DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE the petition. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith, and no basis exists upon which to issue a certificate of appealability.14
IT IS SO ORDERED
