Opinion
Case No. 3:08-cv-1048-J-32TEM.
February 18, 2009
ORDER
Under the E-Government Act of 2002, this is a written opinion and therefore is available electronically. However, it has been entered only to decide the motion or matter addressed herein and is not intended for official publication or to serve as precedent.
Upon review of petitioner's pro se habeas corpus petition, and his proposed amendments thereto, the Court has concerns about its jurisdiction which must be addressed before permitting this matter to proceed further. Cadet v. Bulger, 377 F.3d 1173, 1179 (11th Cir. 2004). Petitioner, who alleges he is a former servicemember of the United States Air Force, brings this matter as a petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus, which is available in limited circumstances to obtain federal court review of a court-martial conviction. See United States v. Augenblick, 393 U.S. 348 (1969). Federal court review pursuant to a petition for writ of habeas corpus, however, is limited to those circumstances where the petitioner is in custody and/or has not yet been discharged from military service. Id. Petitioner does not allege that he is in custody (and his address seems to belie such a claim) and he states that he has been discharged. The Court is therefore inclined to dismiss this petition for want of subject matter jurisdiction. Before the Court does so, however, the petitioner will be afforded an opportunity to advise the Court why it has jurisdiction over this case.
The motions to amend (Docs. 3 and 5) are denied as the proposed amendments would be futile.
The Court notes for the record that other courts have advised pro se petitioner regarding the limited availability of federal court review. See, e.g., Williams v. Dep't of the Air Force, 2007 WL 61876, at *2 (D.D.C. Jan. 4, 2007).
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED:
No later than March 10, 2009, petitioner must file a supplemental brief showing why this Court has subject matter jurisdiction. Failure to file the brief timely will result in the Court dismissing the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida.