Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

jurisdictionappealmotionhabeas corpus
jurisdictionmotionhabeas corpuswill

Related Cases

People v. Frierson, 25 Cal.3d 142, 599 P.2d 587, 158 Cal.Rptr. 281
View Case »
Fugate v. Commonwealth, 202 Ky. 509, 260 S.W. 338
View Case »
Click v. State, 695 So.2d 209
View Case »
Alford v. State, 358 S.W.3d 647
View Case »
Baker v. Commonwealth, 284 Va. 572, 733 S.E.2d 642
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Achter v. U.S. Dist. Court Eastern Dist. of Missouri, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2013 WL 5291683

Facts

Leslie Allen Achter was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm and sentenced to 262 months in prison. After his conviction was affirmed on appeal, he filed a motion to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which was still pending when he filed a separate application for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The court denied his motion to vacate and later dismissed his habeas corpus application for lack of jurisdiction.

Petitioner was found guilty of being a felon in possession of a firearm and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 262 months. On March 18, 1998, petitioner filed a motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. On December 3, 1998, while the motion to vacate was still pending, petitioner filed a separate application for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

Issue

Whether the court had jurisdiction to grant Achter's application for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

Whether the court had jurisdiction to grant Achter's application for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

Rule

A district court's jurisdiction over writs filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is geographically limited to the judicial district in which the petitioner's custodian is located.

A district court's jurisdiction over writs filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is geographically limited to the judicial district in which petitioner's custodian is located.

Analysis

The court determined that it lacked jurisdiction to grant the writ because Achter's custodian was located in the Southern District of Illinois, while the court was situated in a different district. This geographical limitation under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a) meant that the court could not entertain Achter's application for habeas relief.

The court determined that it lacked jurisdiction to grant the writ because Achter's custodian was located in the Southern District of Illinois, while the court was situated in a different district.

Conclusion

The court dismissed Achter's application for a writ of habeas corpus due to lack of jurisdiction.

Consequently, this Court lacks jurisdiction to grant the writ, and this case will be dismissed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3).

Who won?

The United States prevailed in the case because the court found it did not have the authority to grant the writ of habeas corpus.

Petitioner is currently confined in Greenville, Illinois. Petitioner's custodian, therefore, is located within the Southern District of Illinois.

You must be