Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Crippen v. State

United States District Court, D. Nebraska

September 29, 2015

JERRIMIE G. CRIPPEN, Petitioner,
v.
STATE OF NEBRASKA, SCOTT FRAKES, and ROBERT MADSEN, Respondents.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JOSEPH F. BATAILLON, Senior District Judge.

I. PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF PETITION

This matter is before the court on preliminary review of Petitioner Jerrimie Crippen's ("Petitioner") Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Filing No. 1) ("petition") filed on June 29, 2015. Petitioner was convicted of burglary and sentenced as a habitual criminal on November 13, 2009. (Filing No. 1 at CM/ECF p. 3.) He did not file a direct appeal. He filed a postconviction action on August 23, 2012. (Filing No. 1 at CM/ECF p. 4.)

It appears from the face of the petition that Petitioner's claims may be barred by the statute of limitations because the petition was filed more than one year after Petitioner's conviction became final. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). However, in order to ensure a just and fair resolution of this matter, the court will enter an order progressing this case to final resolution.

II. NOTICE

Petitioner filed this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241 and 2254. Section 2241 authorizes federal district courts to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a state or federal prisoner who is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). Section 2254 confers jurisdiction on district courts to "entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). It is a well-established rule of statutory construction that when two statutes cover the same situation, the more specific statute takes precedence over the more general one. See Edmond v. United States, 520 U.S. 651, 657 (1997). A number of circuit courts have held that Section 2254 and its provisions take precedence over Section 2241 because it is the more specific statute. See Medberry v. Crosby, 351 F.3d 1049, 1060 (11th Cir. 2003); Cook v. New York State Div. of Parole, 321 F.3d 274, 279, n.4 (2nd Cir. 2003); Coady v. Vaughn, 251 F.3d 480, 484-85 (3rd Cir. 2001).

Here, it is apparent that Petitioner is challenging his state-court conviction. The appropriate vehicle for doing so is through a petition for writ of habeas corpus brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Therefore, this order serves as notice to Petitioner that the court intends to construe his petition for writ of habeas corpus as one brought solely pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In the alternative, Petitioner may move to voluntarily withdraw his habeas corpus petition within 30 days. See Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375, 382-83 (2003) (requiring notice, warning, and opportunity to amend or withdraw before recharacterization of pro se litigant's motion as initial § 2255 motion; when these requirements unsatisfied, recharacterized motion not considered § 2255 motion rendering later motion successive); see also Martin v. Overton, 391 F.3d 710, 713 (6th Cir. 2004) (applying Castro to § 2254 petition). Should Petitioner decide to allow this action to proceed as one brought solely pursuant to Section 2254, he should be aware of his obligation to raise all of his habeas corpus claims in this action. This is because there is a statutory prohibition against successive petitions by state prisoners codified in 28 U.S.C. § 2244.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:

1. The clerk of the court is directed to mail copies of this Memorandum and Order and the habeas corpus petition to Respondents and the Nebraska Attorney General by regular first-class mail.

2. By November 9, 2015, Respondents must file a motion for summary judgment or state court records in support of an answer. The clerk of the court is directed to set a pro se case management deadline in this case using the following text: November 9, 2015: deadline for Respondents to file state court records in support of answer or motion for summary judgment.

3. If Respondents elects to file a motion for summary judgment, the following procedures must be followed by Respondents and Petitioner:

A. The motion for summary judgment must be accompanied by a separate brief, submitted at the time the motion is filed.
B. The motion for summary judgment must be supported by any state court records that are necessary to support the motion. Those records must be contained in a separate filing entitled: "Designation of State Court Records in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment."
C. Copies of the motion for summary judgment, the designation, including state court records, and Respondents' brief must be served on Petitioner except that Respondents are only required to provide Petitioner with a copy of the specific pages of the record that are cited in Respondents' brief. In the event that the designation of state court records is deemed insufficient by Petitioner, Petitioner may file a motion with the court requesting additional documents. ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.