United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
JONATHAN E. J. SPARKS, Petitioner,
DANIEL Q. SULLIVAN, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
HERNDON, DISTRICT JUDGE.
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. 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.
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
Facts and Procedural History
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.
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. This process was repeated in 2015 and in
2017. Ex. 2, pp. 8-16.
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.
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.”
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).
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 ...