courts “may take judicial notice of judicial opinions and public records.”
How later courts described this case
- courts “may take judicial notice of judicial opinions and public records.”
- district court may take judicial notice of public state records
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
GREGORY OLIVER, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) No. 4:20-cv-936-NAB
)
STATE OF MISSOURI, )
)
Respondent. )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER FOR PETITIONER TO SHOW CAUSE
This matter is before the Court upon review of a Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ
of Habeas Corpus, filed by petitioner Gregory Oliver. Because it does not appear that petitioner
is “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States” as required
by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a), the Court will require him to show cause why the petition should not be
dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Background
In the instant petition, petitioner challenges his 1987 convictions for first degree murder
and assault that were entered in the Circuit Court for the City of St. Louis. State v. Oliver, 791
S.W.2d 782 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990). Petitioner was originally sentenced to life imprisonment without
the possibility of parole. See id. In the instant petition, petitioner avers he pursued various
remedies in the Missouri State courts, most recently by filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus
in the matter Oliver v. McSwain, No. 14AC-CC00500 (19th Jud. Cir. 2014).
Independent review of the publicly-available records from Oliver v. McSwain, along with
review of the instant petition and documents petitioner attached thereto, show the following. In
2005, then-governor Bob Holden commuted petitioner’s sentences to life with the possibility of
parole. In 2007, petitioner was paroled from the Missouri Department of Corrections, and in 2018,
the Missouri Board of Probation and Parole granted petitioner a full discharge from parole
supervision. This Court takes judicial notice of the Missouri State Court record before it, as
obtained through the public records published on Missouri Case.net. See Levy v. Ohl, 477 F.3d
988 (8th Cir. 2007) (district court may take judicial notice of public state records); Stutzka v.
McCarville, 420 F.3d 757, 760 n. 2 (8th Cir. 2005) (courts “may take judicial notice of judicial
opinions and public records.”).
Discussion
“The federal habeas statute gives the United States district courts jurisdiction to entertain
petitions for habeas relief only from persons who are ‘in custody in violation of the Constitution
or laws or treaties of the United States.’” Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490 (1989) (emphasis in
original) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a)). Here, petitioner alleges his place of confinement as “In a
Wrongful Conviction.” (ECF No. 1 at 1). However, it appears that his sentence has expired, and
that he has been discharged from supervision. As such, it appears he is no longer “in custody” for
purposes of § 2254(a). See id. at 492 (a petitioner whose sentence has expired and who has been
unconditionally released is no longer “in custody” for habeas purposes). It therefore appears this
Court lacks jurisdiction to reach the merits of the instant petition, and the Court will direct
petitioner to show cause why the petition should not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner shall show cause, in writing and within thirty
(30) days of the date of this Memorandum and Order, why the petition should not be dismissed for
lack of jurisdiction.
Petitioner’s failure to timely comply with this order shall result in the dismissal of this
action without prejudice and without further notice.
1 41, 27
Wel V4 f SMa
NANNETTE A. BAKER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Dated this 12th day of August, 2020.