Judd v. Holder ( 2010 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FILED
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
SEP 15 2010
Clerk. U.S. District & Bankruptcy
KEITH RUSSELL JUDD, ) Courts for the District of Columbia
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No.
)
ERIC HOLDER, et al., ) 1•~ 1r.- ,Af ....
\J d'j,
)
Respondents. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on review of petitioner's application to proceed in forma
pauperis and pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The application will be granted, and the
petition will be denied.
Petitioner, who currently is incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution in
Texarkana, Texas, brings this action in order to challenge his "possible future confinement or
prosecution under the Gun Control Act, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)[,] at the moment of release from
prison due to [his] prior legal and constructive possession of several firearms." Pet. at 1
(emphasis in original). He asserts that his possible future custody would violate his "Second
Amendment right to Own and Bear Arms (firearms)." Id. at 4.
Article III of the Constitution extends the judicial power of the federal courts only to
"Cases" and "Controversies." U.S. CONST. art. III, § 2. "In an attempt to give meaning to
Article Ill's case-or-controversy requirement, the courts have developed a series of principles
termed "justiciability doctrines,' among which are standing [and] ripeness[.]" Nat 'I Treasury
Employees Union v. United States, 101 F.3d 1423, 1427 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (citation omitted).
"Ripeness, while often spoken of as a justiciability doctrine distinct from standing, in fact shares
the constitutional requirement of standing that an injury in fact be certainly impending." !d.
(citations omitted).
Generally, court should refrain from deciding matters "where the injury is speculative,
and may never occur, because such cases are premature for review." Isenbarger v. Farmer, 463
F. Supp. 2d 13,21 (D.D.C. 2006). It does not appear that petitioner's release from his current
confinement or that the initiation of further criminal proceedings is imminent. For these reasons,
petitioner cannot show that the matter is ripe for review. See Spina v. United States, 60 F.3d 830
(8th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (affirming dismissal of petition for writ of habeas corpus as failing
to allege a case or controversy ripe for adjudication where petition "sought restoration of his gun
rights only after he completes his sentence, which will be several years from now"); Stanley v.
Calif. Sup. Ct., 21 F.3d 359 (9th Cir. 1994) (remanding habeas petition with instructions to
dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction unless petitioner could demonstrate ripeness of
claim regarding ineffectiveness of appellate counsel while direct appeal was pending in
California Supreme Court).
The Court will deny the petition and dismiss this action without prejudice. An Order
accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
DATE: ~ 31 2-0(0
1