Opinion
Case No. 3:08-cv-1048-J-32TEM.
March 13, 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.
On February 18, 2009, after considering the petitioner's habeas corpus petition, this Court issued an order affording the petitioner an opportunity to state a cause of action over which this Court has jurisdiction. (Doc. 6.) With permission, the petitioner has now filed a supplemental brief attempting to explain why this Court has subject matter jurisdiction. (Doc. 7.) While petitioner appears to be making every effort to prosecute his grievances, including those relating to whether he was subject to court-martial jurisdiction, this Court is not the forum to do so because for the reasons given in the February 18, 2009 Order — and notwithstanding the additional arguments raised by petitioner in his supplemental brief-the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
The Court notes that the District Court for the District of Kansas has addressed petitioner's jurisdictional grievances, finding them to be without merit. Williams v. Inch, et al., No. 07-3018-RDR (D. Kan. Sept. 26, 2007), aff'd sub nom. Williams v. Weathersbee, 280 Fed. Appx. 684 (10th Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 210 (Oct. 6, 2008).
Unlike the District Court for the District of Kansas, this Court received the petition for habeas corpus after petitioner was released from confinement.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED:
This case is DISMISSED with prejudice; the Clerk shall close the file.
DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida.