Juste v. Circuit Court

District of Columbia

Juste v. Circuit Court

District Court, District of Columbia·Decided September 19, 2019·No. Civil Action No. 2019-2170·Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FILED FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Andre Juste, ) Mork, U.S. District & Bankruptey ) Courts for the District of Columbi Petitioner, ) ) V. ) Civil Action No, 19-2170 (UNA) ) ) Circuit Court, Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, ) ) Respondent. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION

Petitioner Andre Juste, appearing pro se, has filed a “Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241” against a Florida state court. See Case Caption; Pet. 76. “The writ of habeas corpus shall not extend to a [petitioner] unless” he is “‘in custody” under some authority. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c). From all indications in the petition, Juste is not in custody. Besides, the named circuit court is not a proper respondent to a habeas petition, See Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 434-39 (2004) (discussing immediate custodian rule); accord Blair-Bey v. Quick, 151 F.3d 1036, 1039 (D.C. Cir. 1998). Therefore, this case will be dismissed for want of

jurisdiction. A separate order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

Date: September IZ , 2019

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FILED FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Andre Juste, ) Mork, U.S. District & Bankruptey ) Courts for the District of Columbi Petitioner, ) ) V. ) Civil Action No, 19-2170 (UNA) ) ) Circuit Court, Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, ) ) Respondent. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION

Petitioner Andre Juste, appearing pro se, has filed a “Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241” against a Florida state court. See Case Caption; Pet. 76. “The writ of habeas corpus shall not extend to a [petitioner] unless” he is “‘in custody” under some authority. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c). From all indications in the petition, Juste is not in custody. Besides, the named circuit court is not a proper respondent to a habeas petition, See Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 434-39 (2004) (discussing immediate custodian rule); accord Blair-Bey v. Quick, 151 F.3d 1036, 1039 (D.C. Cir. 1998). Therefore, this case will be dismissed for want of

jurisdiction. A separate order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

Date: September IZ , 2019

Juste v. Circuit Court, (D.D.C. 2019).

Pincite

Juste v. Circuit Court (Juste v. Circuit Court) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related