Gregory v. Waybourn

N.D. Texas

Gregory v. Waybourn

DecidedOctober 21, 2021

Docket4:21-cv-00807

StatusUnknown

This text of Gregory v. Waybourn (Gregory v. Waybourn) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gregory v. Waybourn, (N.D. Tex. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH DIVISION JOSEPH GREGORY, § Petitioner, § § VS. § Civil Action No. 4:21-CV-807-O § B I LL WAYBOURN, Sheriff, § Tarrant County, Texas, § Respondent. § OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 filed by Petitioner, Joseph Gregory, a state pretrial detainee confined in the Tarrant County jail, against Bill Waybourn, sheriff of Tarrant County, Texas, Respondent. After considering the pleadings and relief sought by Petitioner, the Court has concluded that the petition should be dismissed with prejudice for mootness. I. BACKGROUND Petitioner is confined on pending criminal charges in Tarrant County, Texas, for continuous sexual abuse of a child under 14 years of age. Resp’t’s Resp. Ex. 1, ECF No. 8. In this bare-bones petition, Petitioner challenges the constitutionality of his extradition from Arkansas to Texas. Pet. 6, ECF No. 1. He cites the Court to the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, the Uniform Extradition Act, and “Texas art. 51.13.” He explains that (any spelling, grammatical, and/or punctuation errors are in the original) [he] was arrested February 3 and unlawfully extradited May 6. Past 90 days, [he] was served governors warrant on April 29, 2021 and unlawfully extradited back May 6, 2021. Not given 30 days to petition governors warrant. Id. Respondent argues that Petitioner’s habeas challenge to his extradition is moot. The Court agrees. II. DISCUSSION Despite the alleged illegality of his extradition, Petitioner in this case is not entitled to a writ of habeas corpus because he is already in the custody of the demanding state. “Once a fugitive has been brought within custody of the demanding state, legality of extradition is no longer [the] proper

subject of any legal attack by him.” Siegel v. Edwards, 566 F.2d 958, 960 (5th Cir. 1978). See also Harden v. Pataki, 320 F.3d 1289, 1299 (11th Cir. 2003) (quoting Barton v. Norrod, 106 F.3d 1289, 1299 (6th Cir. 1997)) (providing “[o]nce the fugitive is returned to the demanding state, the right to challenge extradition becomes moot: the fugitive is no longer being detained by the asylum state, and so, the legality of his or her detention there is no longer at issue”). Petitioner has already been returned to the demanding state, Texas; therefore, the legality of his extradition from Arkansas is moot.

III. CONCLUSION For the reasons discussed herein, Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is DISMISSED with prejudice as moot. SO ORDERED on this 21st day of October, 2021.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH DIVISION JOSEPH GREGORY, § Petitioner, § § VS. § Civil Action No. 4:21-CV-807-O § B I LL WAYBOURN, Sheriff, § Tarrant County, Texas, § Respondent. § OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 filed by Petitioner, Joseph Gregory, a state pretrial detainee confined in the Tarrant County jail, against Bill Waybourn, sheriff of Tarrant County, Texas, Respondent. After considering the pleadings and relief sought by Petitioner, the Court has concluded that the petition should be dismissed with prejudice for mootness. I. BACKGROUND Petitioner is confined on pending criminal charges in Tarrant County, Texas, for continuous sexual abuse of a child under 14 years of age. Resp’t’s Resp. Ex. 1, ECF No. 8. In this bare-bones petition, Petitioner challenges the constitutionality of his extradition from Arkansas to Texas. Pet. 6, ECF No. 1. He cites the Court to the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, the Uniform Extradition Act, and “Texas art. 51.13.” He explains that (any spelling, grammatical, and/or punctuation errors are in the original) [he] was arrested February 3 and unlawfully extradited May 6. Past 90 days, [he] was served governors warrant on April 29, 2021 and unlawfully extradited back May 6, 2021. Not given 30 days to petition governors warrant. Id. Respondent argues that Petitioner’s habeas challenge to his extradition is moot. The Court agrees. II. DISCUSSION Despite the alleged illegality of his extradition, Petitioner in this case is not entitled to a writ of habeas corpus because he is already in the custody of the demanding state. “Once a fugitive has been brought within custody of the demanding state, legality of extradition is no longer [the] proper

subject of any legal attack by him.” Siegel v. Edwards, 566 F.2d 958, 960 (5th Cir. 1978). See also Harden v. Pataki, 320 F.3d 1289, 1299 (11th Cir. 2003) (quoting Barton v. Norrod, 106 F.3d 1289, 1299 (6th Cir. 1997)) (providing “[o]nce the fugitive is returned to the demanding state, the right to challenge extradition becomes moot: the fugitive is no longer being detained by the asylum state, and so, the legality of his or her detention there is no longer at issue”). Petitioner has already been returned to the demanding state, Texas; therefore, the legality of his extradition from Arkansas is moot.

III. CONCLUSION For the reasons discussed herein, Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is DISMISSED with prejudice as moot. SO ORDERED on this 21st day of October, 2021.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Gregory v. Waybourn, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gregory-v-waybourn-txnd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack