Jenners v. Eichenlaub et al, No. 1:2008cv12682 - Document 6 (E.D. Mich. 2008)
Court Description: OPINION and ORDER dismissing 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Signed by District Judge Thomas L Ludington. (KGeh)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION JOHN JENNERS, Petitioner, Case Number 08-12682 Honorable Thomas L. Ludington v. L.C. EICHENLAUB and ATTORNEY GENERAL, State of Oregon, Respondents. / OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS Petitioner John Jenners, a federal prisoner who was confined at the Federal Correctional Institution in Milan, Michigan at the time he filed this action and who is currently confined at the Federal Correctional Institution in Waseca, Minnesota, challenges outstanding warrants from Washington County in Oregon. Petitioner requests a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 224. Petitioner contends that those warrants are preventing him from being considered for an early release benefit upon completion of the Bureau of Prisons residential drug treatment program and from being considered for placement in a halfway house. For the reasons stated, the Court dismisses the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. I Petitioner was convicted of conspiracy to commit bank fraud, counterfeiting, and aiding and abetting counterfeiting in the United States District Court for the District of South Dakota and was sentenced to 96 months imprisonment and five years of supervised release. He is currently scheduled for release on November 7, 2010. Petitioner filed the present petition on June 23, 2008 challenging outstanding Oregon warrants and listing the following claims as grounds for relief: (1) the existence of the warrants will cause him to forfeit twelve months early release earned from participating in RDAP; (2)t he warrants will also render him ineligible for half-way house placement; (3) he is unable to discover the secret indictment; and (4) he is consequently unable to defend against the charges in the secret indictment. Respondent L. C. Eichenlaub filed an answer to the petition asserting that it should be dismissed as moot because the petitioner is not subject to a detainer arising from the Washington County, Oregon warrants and his only outstanding detainer, based upon a warrant from Cass County in North Dakota, was removed on August 15, 2008. The respondent further states that the petitioner is eligible for early release upon successful completion of the residential drug treatment program and is eligible for halfway house placement. II Article III limits the federal courts to deciding cases and controversies. To ensure that any matter presented to a federal court meets that requirement, courts consider the doctrines of standing, ripeness, and mootness. To establish standing, [a] plaintiff must allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant s allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief. Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984). The injury must be an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992) (citations and quotation omitted). In this case, the records submitted by Respondent demonstrate that the Bureau of Prisons has removed the only existing detainer from Petitioner s records and has deemed him eligible for the -2- early release benefit and for halfway house placement. Consequently, the Court cannot grant Petitioner any further relief in this action. His petition has thus been rendered moot and must be dismissed. III For the reasons stated, the Court concludes that there is no longer any case or controversy for the Court to resolve in this matter. There is no additional relief that the Court may provide Petitioner under the circumstances of this case. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus [Dkt. # 1] is DISMISSED as moot. s/Thomas L. Ludington THOMAS L. LUDINGTON United States District Judge Dated: September 24, 2008 PROOF OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first class U.S. mail on September 24, 2008. s/Tracy A. Jacobs TRACY A. JACOBS -3-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
