Aich v. Campbell

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
JESSE JOSEPH AICH,
Petitioner,
v. 	CASE NO. 26-3062-JWL
DARRIAN CAMPBELL,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This is a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus filed 	pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 by
Petitioner Jesse Joseph Aich, a pretrial detainee being held at the Reno County Correctional
Facility in Hutchinson, Kansas. It comes before the Court on Petitioner’s “Arrest of Judgment,”
which informs the Court that the civil docket sheet for this case states “Jury Demand: 	[N]one,”
despite Petitioner clearly indicating in his petition that he demands a jury trial. (Doc. 4.) Petitioner
acknowledges that demanding a jury trial is not an option on the court-approved, required form,
so he wrote on the first page of the petition the phrase “Notice requesting trial BY JURY!!!” Id.;
(see also Doc. 1, p. 1.).
The Court liberally construes the filing as a notice to the Court, but to the extent that it
could be intended to request a jury trial, such request is denied. Simply put, there is no right to
have a jury determine whether a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 should be granted. The
relevant statutes do not contemplate a jury trial. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Writs of habeas corpus
may be granted by the Supreme Court, any justice thereof, the district courts and any circuit judge
within their respective jurisdictions.”); 28 U.S.C. § 2243 (“The court shall summarily hear and
determine the facts, and dispose of the matter as law and justice require.”). Similarly, the Rules
Case 5:26-cv-03062-JWL Document 5 Filed 04/03/26 Page 1 of 2

2
Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, which also apply to cases
brought under § 2241, anticipate the need to expand the record or hold an evidentiary hearing, but
there is no mention of a jury. See Rules 1, 7, and 8 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, 28
U.S.C. foll. § 2254. This is because, as other federal district courts have recognized, “‘[t]here is
no right to a jury relative to a habeas petition; rather, the district court rules on the petition.’”
Carradine v. Wisc., 2024 WL 4039889, *5 (E.D. Wisc. Sept. 4, 2024) (unpublished) (quoting
Ellison v. Hodge, 2014 WL 222739, *2 (S.D. Ill. Jan. 21, 2014) (unpublished)). See also Olivares
v. United States, 2022 WL 2656790, *9 (D. S.D. July 8, 2022) (unpublished) (“There is no right
to a jury trial in habeas corpus proceedings.”); Brown v. Kallis, 2022 WL 1652933, *10 n.6 (D.
Minn. April 21, 2022) (unpublished) (“[A]s to Brown’s request for a jury trial, the Court finds no
cognizable basis to grant such relief. [Citations omitted.]”).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that to the extent Doc. 4 could be liberally construed as
a request for a jury trial, such request is denied. There is no right to a jury trial in this federal habeas
proceeding.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: 	This 3rd day of April, 2026, at Kansas City, Kansas.
S/ John W. Lungstrum
JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM
United States District Judge
Case 5:26-cv-03062-JWL Document 5 Filed 04/03/26 Page 2 of 2