David Angel Sifuentes, III v. John Prelesnik

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan dismissed David Angel Sifuentes III’s habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for lack of jurisdiction because he was no longer in custody when the petition was filed. The court denied a certificate of appealability and denied the motion to appoint counsel, concluding that reasonable jurists could not debate the jurisdictional ruling.

Holdings

1. A federal district court lacks jurisdiction over a § 2254 petition when the petitioner is not in custody under the conviction or sentence being challenged at the time the petition is filed, and the custody requirement is not satisfied after the challenged sentence has fully expired absent circumstances involving continuing severe restraints on liberty.
2. A certificate of appealability must be denied because reasonable jurists could not debate the court’s conclusion that it lacked jurisdiction where Petitioner was not in custody.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) when Petitioner was no longer in custody pursuant to the challenged state-court judgment.
2. Whether Petitioner was entitled to a certificate of appealability after dismissal on the jurisdictional custody ground.
3. Whether Petitioner was entitled to appointment of counsel.

Disposition

dismissed