Larry Painter v. T. C. Outlaw

Eighth Circuit

Larry Painter v. T. C. Outlaw

334 F. App'x 47

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedAugust 18, 2009

Docket08-1937

StatusUnpublished

This text of 334 F. App'x 47 (Larry Painter v. T. C. Outlaw) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Larry Painter v. T. C. Outlaw, 334 F. App'x 47 (8th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Federal inmate Larry Painter appeals the district court’s 1 dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging a 1981 Missouri escape conviction, which was used to enhance the federal sentence he is currently serving for firearm-possession offenses. The district court correctly found that it was without jurisdiction to consider the petition, as Painter is no longer “in custody” on the state conviction. See Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 492-93, 109 S.Ct. 1923, 104 L.Ed.2d 540 (1989) (per curiam) (habeas petitioner is no longer in custody after sentence has fully expired, even if prior conviction is used to enhance subsequent conviction); Love v. Tippy, 128 F.3d 1258, 1258-59 (8th Cir.1997) (per curiam) (petitioner who completed serving state sentence before federal conviction is no longer in custody under state conviction).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

1

. The Honorable Beth Deere, United States Magistrate Judge for die Eastern District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c),

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

PER CURIAM.

Federal inmate Larry Painter appeals the district court’s 1 dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging a 1981 Missouri escape conviction, which was used to enhance the federal sentence he is currently serving for firearm-possession offenses. The district court correctly found that it was without jurisdiction to consider the petition, as Painter is no longer “in custody” on the state conviction. See Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 492-93, 109 S.Ct. 1923, 104 L.Ed.2d 540 (1989) (per curiam) (habeas petitioner is no longer in custody after sentence has fully expired, even if prior conviction is used to enhance subsequent conviction); Love v. Tippy, 128 F.3d 1258, 1258-59 (8th Cir.1997) (per curiam) (petitioner who completed serving state sentence before federal conviction is no longer in custody under state conviction).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

1

. The Honorable Beth Deere, United States Magistrate Judge for die Eastern District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c),

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

334 F. App'x 47, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/larry-painter-v-t-c-outlaw-ca8-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack