United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Herndon, United States District Judge
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. 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
Facts and Procedural History
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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 ...