Johnson v. State of Oregon

• Court: District Court, D. Oregon
• Decided: September 8, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-01096
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

MARTIN ALLEN JOHNSON, Case No. 2:25-cv-01096-JR Petitioner, ORDER TO DISMISS v.

STATE OF OREGON,

Respondent.

BAGGIO, District Judge

Petitioner, an adult in custody at the Snake River Correctional Institution, brings this 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus action challenging the existence of and/or failure by the State of Oregon to act upon a detainer lodged against petitioner by the U.S. Marshal’s Service for a federal parole violation. On August 5, 2025, Magistrate Judge Jolie A. Russo issued an Order to Show Cause (ECF No. 8) requiring petitioner to show cause in writing why his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus should not be summarily dismissed on the basis that the mere existence of a detainer is not sufficient to render petitioner in federal custody for habeas corpus purposes. Currently before the Court is petitioner’s Response (ECF No. 9) to Judge Russo’s order. Petitioner’s response does not establish that the existence of the federal detainer renders petitioner in federal custody as required for the purposes of habeas corpus. See Moody v. Daggett, 429 U.S. 78, 86-87 (1976) (holding that a federal parolee imprisoned for a state conviction resulting from a crime committed while on federal parole does not have a right to a prompt parole revocation hearing upon the filing of a parole violator warrant with the institution of his confinement, and that the loss of liberty does not occur until the parolee is taken into federal custody under the violator warrant); Hopper v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 702 F.2d 842, 848 (9th Cir. 1983) (holding that the mere existence of a federal detainer alone is not sufficient to render petitioner in federal custody). Because petitioner is not “in custody” as a result of the detainer, this Court lacks jurisdiction and his petition must be summarily dismissed. See Rule 4, Rules Governing § 2554 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED. DATED this__ 8th __ day of September 2025.

Amey We. Faggee Amy M. Baggio United States District Judge

2 ORDER TO DISMISS