Stuart v. Pullen
| Jessica M. Stuart |
| Pullen |
| 3:2022cv01388 |
| November 1, 2022 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| Maria E Garcia |
| Michael P Shea |
| Habeas Corpus (General) |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal) |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 28, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 9
ORDER: The Petitioner, an inmate confined at FCI Danbury, brings this action pro se for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2241. Section 2241 provides that "the Supreme Court, any justice thereof, the district courts and any circuit judge within their respective jurisdictions" may grant a writ of habeas corpus to a petitioner "in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. 2241(a), (c)(3). "That section generally permits federal prisoners to challenge the execution of a sentence, including the computation of the sentence and parole decisions, rather than the imposition of that sentence or the underlying federal conviction under section 2255." Blanchard v. New York, No. 918CV0448, 2018 WL 2324054, at *2 (N.D.N.Y. May 22, 2018). "State prisoners, in contrast, must bring challenges both to the execution of a sentence and to underlying convictions under section 2254, which governs petitions filed by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." Id. Here, the Petitioner is not challenging her federal conviction or sentence. Instead, she challenges state action - i.e., the lodging by the State of Connecticut of a detainer based on her state court convictions. See ECF No. 1, Petition. In addition to the removal of the detainer, she seeks the return of monies she overpaid to the State toward her fine. ECF No. 1 at 8. Section 2254 is therefore the appropriate jurisdictional base for her claims. See Blanchard, 2018 WL 2324054, at *2 (petitioner in federal custody challenging a detainer by State of New York must proceed under 2254); Manns v. Martinez, No. 3:08CV752(JCH), 2008 WL 5104809, at *1 (D. Conn. Dec. 1, 2008) (construing federal prisoner's petition filed under 2241 as filed under 2254 because it challenged the State of Connecticut's detainer). See also Esposito v. Mintz, 726 F.2d 371, 373 (7th Cir. 1984) ("the issuance of a detainer is an act of the state based on that state's laws and process, and the detainer, in effect, is a custodial hold of the issuing state.... Therefore, 2254 is the proper jurisdictional basis for a challenge to the validity of a detainer.") (citations omitted). Section 2254 expressly states that an application for a writ of habeas corpus may not be granted until a petitioner has exhausted all remedies available in state court unless "there is an absence of available State corrective process or circumstances exist that render such process ineffective to protect the rights of the applicant." 28 U.S.C. 2254 (b)(1)(A), (B)(i), (ii). "In order to properly exhaust [her] state court remedies, the Petitioner must present the factual and legal bases of [her] federal claims to the highest state court capable of reviewing them and utilize all available means to secure appellate review of her claims." Musciotto v. Nardelli, No. 3:19CV559(KAD), 2019 WL 5086691, at *4 (D. Conn. Oct. 10, 2019). "Failure to exhaust state court remedies may be excused only if 'there is no opportunity to obtain redress in state court or if the corrective process is so clearly deficient to render futile any effort to obtain relief.'" Id. (quoting Duckworth v. Serrano, 454 U.S. 1, 3 (1981) (per curiam)). The Petition clearly indicates that the Petitioner has not exhausted her state court remedies. "[T]he Second Circuit has cautioned district courts against converting Section 2241 petitions to Section 2254 petitions because petitioners may thereby be prevented 'from ever seeking federal review of claims, even meritorious ones, not raised in [the converted Section 2254 petition].'" Dionizio v. Caron, No. 3:20CV1542(KAD), 2020 WL 6275037, at *1 (D. Conn. Oct. 26, 2020) (citing Cook, 321 F.3d at 281). Therefore, the petition (ECF No. #1 ) is DISMISSED without prejudice to refiling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254 and the pending motions (ECF Nos. #2 , #7 ) are DENIED without prejudice. The Clerk of Court is instructed to close this case. Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 11/28/22. (Constantine, A.)
|
| Filing 8 EXHIBIT A by Jessica M. Stuart. (Attachments: #1 Envelope) (Peterson, M) |
| Filing 7 MOTION to Appoint Counsel by Jessica M. Stuart. (Attachments: #1 Envelope) (Peterson, M) |
| Filing 6 Prisoner Trust Fund Account Statement by Jessica M. Stuart. (Attachments: #1 Envelope) (Peterson, M) |
| Filing 3 NOTICE OF INSUFFICIENCY. In this habeas action, the plaintiff has filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis; in other words, she seeks to commence a federal lawsuit without pre-paying the filing fee. A federal law, 28 U.S.C. 1915, permits her to do so if, among other things, she files a certified copy of her inmate trust account statement for the six month period preceding her complaint. In this case, the plaintiff did not do so. The plaintiff is therefore directed to file with the Clerk of the Court a certified copy of her inmate trust account statement covering at least the period from April 6, 2022 to October 6, 2022. If she does not do so by November 24, 2022, her case may be dismissed. Signed by Judge Thomas O. Farrish on 11/3/2022.(Corriette, M.) |
|
Filing 5
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 11/01/2022. (Peterson, M)
|
|
Filing 4
STANDING PROTECTIVE ORDER Signed by Judge Michael P. Shea on 11/01/2022. (Peterson, M)
|
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Jessica M. Stuart. (Chartier, AnnMarie) |
| Filing 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by Jessica M. Stuart. (Attachments: #1 Exhibits, #2 Envelope)(Chartier, AnnMarie) |
| Judge Michael P. Shea and Judge Maria E. Garcia added. (Freberg, B) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Connecticut District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Stuart v. Pullen | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner: Jessica M. Stuart | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Respondent: Pullen | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
