Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Sparkss v. Sullivan

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

November 16, 2017

JONATHAN E. J. SPARKS, Petitioner,
v.
DANIEL Q. SULLIVAN, Respondent.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          HERNDON, DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Jonathan E. J. Sparks is an inmate in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections. He filed a petition for habeas relief pursuant to §2254, Doc. 1.[1] As construed on preliminary review, the petition alleges that Sparks has served his prison sentence, but he has not been released to serve his mandatory supervised release because, as a sex offender, he is required to reside at an approved residence and he cannot locate one. The petition alleges that the repeated revocation of his supervised release and his continued incarceration violate his federal constitutional rights. See, Doc. 7.

         Now before the Court is respondent's Motion to Dismiss Habeas Corpus Petition, Doc. 16. Respondent argues that the petition must be dismissed because petitioner failed to exhaust state judicial remedies. Petitioner has not responded to the motion.

         Relevant Facts and Procedural History

         In July 2010, Sparks pleaded guilty to one count of criminal sexual assault in Jersey County, Illinois, and was sentenced to four years imprisonment to be followed by a term of mandatory supervised release (MSR) of three years to life. Doc. 16, Ex. 2, pp. 1-7.[2]

         In July 2013, petitioner was “released” on MSR and immediately found to be in violation of the terms of his release because he did not have acceptable housing.[3] This process was repeated in 2015 and in 2017. Ex. 2, pp. 8-16.

         Sparks did not file a state court challenge to his continued custody and claims that “the State of Illinois provides no judicial review.” Doc. 1, p. 3.

         Applicable Legal Standards

         Although Sparks used a form for a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, it is clear that his petition must be construed as being brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He was convicted in state court and is challenging his custody pursuant to that state court judgment. Therefore, the Court properly construed this as an action under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See, Walker v. O'Brien, 216 F.3d 626, 633 (7th Cir. 2000), holding that the requirements of § 2254 apply to a petition filed by a person in custody pursuant to a state court judgment challenging his custody “no matter what statutory label the prisoner has given the case.”

         This habeas petition is subject to the provisions of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, known as the AEDPA. “The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 modified a federal habeas court's role in reviewing state prisoner applications in order to prevent federal habeas ‘retrials' and to ensure that state-court convictions are given effect to the extent possible under law.” Bell v. Cone, 122 S.Ct. 1843, 1849 (2002).

         28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) restricts habeas relief to cases wherein the state court determination “resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States” or “a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254(b)(1) requires that state judicial remedies be exhausted before a federal court can grant habeas relief:

An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted unless it appears that--
(A) the applicant has exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State; or
(B)(i) there is an absence of available State corrective process; or (ii) circumstances exist that render such process ineffective to ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.