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.

Daviss v. Findley

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

December 7, 2017

MAURICE DAVIS, Petitioner,
v.
CRAIG FINDLEY, Respondent.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          Herndon, United States District Judge

         Maurice Davis was an inmate in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections at the time he filed a petition for habeas relief pursuant to §2254, Doc. 1.[1] Now before the Court is respondent's Motion to Dismiss Habeas Corpus Petition, Doc. 10. 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 September 2012, Davis was convicted of burglary by a jury in Madison County, Illinois, and was sentenced to six years imprisonment to be followed by a two-year term of mandatory supervised release. The Illinois sentence was to be served concurrently with a Missouri term of imprisonment for parole violation, and petitioner was credited with time served since his arrest on January 26, 2012. Petitioner was turned over to the Missouri Department of Corrections, where he remained until July 12, 2013. Doc. 10, Ex. 1-3.

         Because Davis was entitled to day-for-day credit on his Illinois sentence, he was expected to serve three years (1095 days) on his six year sentence. As of July 12, 2013, he still had about 561 days left on his Illinois sentence. For reasons that are not explained, when Davis was discharged from Missouri custody on July 12, 2013, he was not delivered into Illinois custody, but was simply released.

         Around the time his Illinois sentence should have expired, the Madison County State's Attorney's Office obtained a warrant for petitioner's arrest so that he could serve the time left on his Illinois sentence. Davis was arrested on January 26, 2015, and delivered into the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections. Ex. 1, p. 6.

         Petitioner was released from the IDOC on August 9, 2016, but he violated the terms of his MSR and was arrested and returned to the IDOC. Ex. 3, p. 2; Ex. 4, p. 1.

         Davis filed two state court actions challenging his custody. He filed a mandamus action in Madison County in May 2015, which he voluntarily dismissed in February 2016. Ex. 5-6, 8. He also filed a state habeas petition in Madison County in September 2015, which remained pending as of the filing of respondent's motion to dismiss in October 2017. No action had been taken in the state habeas case since the issuance of an alias summons in February 2016. Ex. 7.

         Petitioner's Current Status

         According to respondent, petitioner was released from the IDOC and began serving his MSR term on September 27, 2017. Doc, 10, p. 3; Ex 2, p. 2. Petitioner has not notified this Court of his release or of his current address.

         The fact that petitioner has been released from prison, standing alone, does not mean that the petition is moot. Davis contends that he should not have been imprisoned in the IDOC in January 2015. If he is entitled to habeas relief, he would be entitled to relief in the form of an earlier termination of his supervised release. See, White v. Indiana Parole Board, 266 F.3d 759, 763 (7th Cir. 2001).

         Applicable Legal Standards

         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 ...


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.