MCDUFFY v. WARDEN, No. 2:2019cv00283 - Document 17 (S.D. Ind. 2020)

Court Description: ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION AND DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT - Petitioner James McDuffy filed this habeas corpus action challenging his 2002 parole revocation following his theft conviction in Indiana case 49G06-0012-CF-222257. Mr. McDuffy is no longer in custody pursuant to the state-court judgment he challenges, so his petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. All pending motions are VACATED. Final judgment shall enter. See Order. Signed by Judge James Patrick Hanlon on 1/14/2020.(KAA)

Download PDF
MCDUFFY v. WARDEN Doc. 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA TERRE HAUTE DIVISION JAMES MCDUFFY, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Petitioner, v. WARDEN, Respondent. No. 2:19-cv-00283-JPH-MJD ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION AND DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT Petitioner James McDuffy filed this habeas corpus action challenging his 2002 parole revocation following his theft conviction in Indiana case 49G06-0012-CF-222257. Mr. McDuffy is no longer in custody pursuant to the state-court judgment he challenges, so his petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. “Federal courts have jurisdiction over a habeas petition only if the petitioner is ‘in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court.’” Stanbridge v. Scott, 791 F.3d 715, 718 (7th Cir. 2015) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a)). Where a petitioner “‘is no longer serving the sentences imposed pursuant to’ the conviction challenged in a petition,” he cannot satisfy the custody requirement. Id. (quoting Lackawanna Cnty. Dist. Att’y v. Coss, 532 U.S. 394, 401 (2001)). Mr. McDuffy completed his sentence for case 49G06-0012-CF-222257 in 2002. See Dkt. 15-5 at 18−19 (ordering Mr. McDuffy to serve 30 days in Indiana Department of Correction following parole violation). He is currently serving a 185-year sentence based on his 2013 convictions for murder, kidnapping, attempted murder, robbery, and conspiracy to commit kidnapping. McDuffy v. State, 2014 WL 4446375, at *2 (Ind. Ct. App. Sept. 10, 2014). 1 Dockets.Justia.com Mr. McDuffy asserts (and the respondent agrees) that his 2002 conviction was used to enhance his current sentence. Dkt. 2 at 6; dkt. 8 at 1 (2002 conviction “was a predicate offense for his [2013] habitual enhancement”). But “‘when sentence A has expired but has been used to augment sentence B, the prisoner is “in custody” only on sentence B.’” Stanbridge, 791 F.3d at 721 (quoting Crank v. Duckworth, 905 F.2d 1090, 1091 (7th Cir. 1990)). Mr. McDuffy’s petition does not purport to challenge his 2013 conviction, and the Court will not construe it as such a challenge because (1) it would be futile and (2) it might limit Mr. McDuffy’s ability to file another petition challenging that conviction. See Coss, 532 U.S. at 403−04 (“If [a prior] conviction is later used to enhance a criminal sentence, the defendant generally may not challenge the enhanced sentence through a petition under § 2254 on the ground that the prior conviction was unconstitutionally obtained.”); 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2) (limiting a petitioner’s ability to bring a second or successive petition challenging the same conviction). Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. All pending motions are VACATED. Final judgment shall enter. SO ORDERED. Date: 1/14/2020 Distribution: JAMES MCDUFFY 113995 WABASH VALLEY – CF WABASH VALLEY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY - Inmate Mail/Parcels Electronic Service Participant – Court Only Justin F. Roebel INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL justin.roebel@atg.in.gov 2

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.