United States District Court, N.D. Mississippi, Greenville Division
COURTNEY R. LOGAN, Petitioner,
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, ET AL., Respondents.
GLEN H. DAVIDSON, Magistrate Judge.
This matter comes before the court on the pro se petition of Courtney R. Logan for a writ of habeas corpus WIder 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The State has moved  to dismiss the petition for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted - and for failure to exhaust State remedies. Logan has responded to the motion, and the matter is ripe for resolution. For the reasons set forth below, the State's motion  to dismiss will be granted and the petition dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
Facts and Procedural Posture
The petitioner, Courtney Logan, is in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections and is currently housed at the Wilkinson COWIty Correctional Facility in Woodville, Mississippi. On March 15, 2010, a Leflore County Grand Jury indicted Courtney Logan for one count of aiding the escape of a Mississippi Department of Corrections ("MDOC") inmate and one count of being a felon in possession of a deadly weapon. On the same date, the grand jury indicted Joseph L. Jackson and Courtney Logan on three COWItS of kidnapping. Id. On September 25, 2012, the prosecution moved to charge Logan as a habitual offender under Mississippi Code Annotated 99-19-83. On November 27, 2012, Courtney Logan was tried and convicted of all five charges. On November 28, 2012, he was sentenced as a habitual offender, WIder Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-83, to serve life terms for each of his convictions without the possibility of parole. Logan appealed his convictions and sentences to the Mississippi Supreme Court, and the appeal is pending. (Miss. Sup.Ct. Case No. 2012-KA-01963-COA).
On July 10, 2013, Logan filed the instant federal petition  for a writ of habeas corpus. The court initially dismissed  the petition, sua sponte, for failure to exhaust state remedies. However, the court later rescinded  the dismissal. On October 3, 2014, the court directed the State to answer the petition. On November 5, 2014, the court granted  the petitioner's motion to amend his petition. ECF, Doc. 23. The State has now moved to dismiss the petition for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
Logan sets forth the following grounds for relief in the instant petition:
Ground One. Due process violation, current custody is in violation of a treaty between t[w]o states. lAD violation, executive agreement violated.
Ground Two. Denial of access to courts. Due to Respondents breach of the executive agreement I've been turned over to non[-]parties of that agreement who claim to not be responsible for providing me access to Tennessee case law. I've had a new trial motion pending since February 28, 2011. It has beerI postponed due to my extradition, I currently have no attorney appointed from Tennessee and I'm being hindered from proceeding with said trial proceeding. Also my direct appeal. I was also without counsel at the time my involuntary transfer took place in the state of Tennessee.
Ground Three. Breach of Executive agreement. The state of Mississippi entered into an executive agreement with the state of Tennessee to have me extradited to Mississippi to be tried on an indictment. After trial of the prosecution I was to be returned to Tennessee but was turned over to MDoe and currently being denied certain constitutional rights that were preserved.
Ground Four. Due process violation of procedural rights. I was failed to be advised of the procedural rights which govern the extradition.
Ground Five. Petitioner asserts that extradition procedures used by respondents were un-lawful and lacked authentic documentation supporting petitioner[']s current confinement. Petitioner asserts that adoption of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers would rectify all concerns in reference to petitioners habeas corpus petition.
Logan seeks relief in the form of having the extradition executive agreement between Tennessee and Mississippi upheld such that he might take advantage of the procedural rights afforded him during extradition. He would also like a hearing to determine whether he was actually a fugitive at the time of his arrest, detention, and subsequent extradition. Further, during that process, he would like for Mississippi and Tennessee to follow the requirements of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers. In his response to the State's motion to dismiss, Logan complains he has been unable to pursue an appeal of his Tennessee conviction because of the actions of ...