Victor D. Vickers, Jr. v. Angela Mesmer

Vickers v. Mesmer · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Northern Division · May 13, 2026 · No. 2:26-CV-34 HEA

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri denied Victor D. Vickers, Jr.’s motion for a temporary restraining order in his federal habeas action against Angela Mesmer. The court concluded that Vickers was unlikely to succeed on claims concerning Missouri jail-time credits, a newly enacted state statute, and good-time or time-credit release because the claims were either not cognizable under federal habeas review, unexhausted, or based on state-law issues that did not establish a protected liberty interest. The court therefore denied the motion without addressing the remaining temporary-relief factors.

Holdings

  1. A claim seeking federal habeas relief based on the interpretation and application of Missouri's jail-time-credit statute is not cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 merely because the petitioner characterizes the state-law dispute as a due-process violation.
  2. A federal habeas court may not review a newly asserted state-law claim that has not been exhausted in state court when the petitioner has not shown that state proceedings would be futile or ineffective.
  3. Missouri's good-time-credit and administrative-parole provisions do not create a protected liberty interest in receiving good-time credits or being released on a projected time-credit release date.
  4. Vickers was not entitled to a temporary restraining order because he failed to demonstrate a fair chance of prevailing on any of his four habeas claims.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Vickers demonstrated a fair chance of success on his claim that Missouri's calculation of jail-time credits violated federal due process.
  2. Whether Vickers's challenge under the 2026 amendment to Missouri Revised Statutes § 558.031 was reviewable under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 despite failure to exhaust state remedies.
  3. Whether Missouri's good-time-credit and administrative-parole provisions created a protected liberty interest giving rise to a federal due-process claim.
  4. Whether Vickers was entitled to a temporary restraining order requiring his immediate release from custody.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (33)

  • Branstad v. Glickman, 118 F. Supp. 2d 925, 936 (N.D. Iowa 2000)(followed)
  • Kroupa v. Nielsen, 731 F.3d 813, 818 (8th Cir. 2013)(followed)
  • Dataphase Systems, Inc. v. C L Systems, Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 113 (8th Cir. 1981) (en banc)(followed)
  • Roudachevski v. All-American Care Centers, Inc., 648 F.3d 701, 706 (8th Cir. 2011)(followed)
  • Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota v. Rounds, 530 F.3d 724, 732 (8th Cir. 2008) (en banc)(followed)
  • Phyllis Schlafly Revocable Trust v. Cori, 924 F.3d 1004, 1009 (8th Cir. 2019)(followed)
  • General Motors Corp. v. Harry Brown's, LLC, 563 F.3d 312, 319 (8th Cir. 2009)(followed)
  • Chlorine Institute, Inc. v. Soo Line Railroad, 792 F.3d 903, 914 (8th Cir. 2015)(followed)
  • Cigna Corp. v. Bricker, 103 F.4th 1336, 1343 (8th Cir. 2024)(followed)
  • Heartland Academy Community Church v. Waddle, 335 F.3d 684, 690 (8th Cir. 2003)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 33.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…