Yevgeniy Velentino Kostenko v. Warden

Summary

The court ordered petitioner Yevgeniy Velentino Kostenko to show cause why his habeas petition should not be summarily dismissed. The court explained that 28 U.S.C. § 2254 did not apply because the petition challenged extradition rather than a criminal conviction or sentence, and that § 2241 review of extradition is limited to four narrow issues that the petition did not raise. The court directed petitioner to respond within seven days and warned that failure to do so could result in closure of the case for lack of prosecution and noncompliance with court orders.

Holdings

1. Section 2254 does not provide a basis for relief from a state extradition order because an extradition order is not a criminal conviction and detention pending extradition is not a criminal sentence or custody pursuant to a state-court judgment.
2. Habeas review under § 2241 of a state extradition proceeding is limited to whether the extradition documents are facially in order, whether the petitioner is charged with a crime in the demanding state, whether the petitioner is the person named in the extradition request, and whether the petitioner is a fugitive.
3. When it plainly appears from a habeas petition that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the court may require a response and may summarily dismiss the petition if the jurisdictional defect is not cured.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the petition could proceed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 when petitioner was challenging a state extradition order rather than custody pursuant to a state criminal conviction or sentence.
2. Whether the petition stated a basis for federal habeas jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 despite challenging an extradition proceeding.
3. Whether the petition should be summarily dismissed or petitioner should be ordered to show cause why dismissal for lack of jurisdiction was unwarranted.

Disposition

other