Roderick Howard v. Warden , 776 F.3d 772 ( 2015 )

Case: 13-12831 Date Filed: 01/09/2015 Page: 1 of 8
[PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-12831
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 4:13-cv-00180-CDL-MSH
RODERICK HOWARD,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
WARDEN,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Georgia
________________________
(January 9, 2015)
Before MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges, and MORENO, * District
Judge.
MARTIN, Circuit Judge:
*
Honorable Federico A. Moreno, United States District Judge for the Southern District of
Florida, sitting by designation.
Case: 13-12831 Date Filed: 01/09/2015 Page: 2 of 8
Roderick Howard appeals the District Court’s dismissal of his pre-trial
habeas corpus petition challenging the constitutionality of a dead-docketed
indictment that has been pending for approximately nineteen years. The District
Court held that it did not have jurisdiction to consider Mr. Howard’s petition
because he was not “in custody” in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties
of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). After careful consideration, we
agree that a dead-docketed indictment, without more, does not constitute custody
and affirm.
I.
In 1995, a Muscogee County, Georgia grand jury indicted Mr. Howard for
burglary. He was never tried or convicted for that offense. Instead, in 1996, the
trial court moved his indictment to the Georgia “dead docket,” where it remains
today. This process of dead-docketing an indictment is one by which “prosecution
is postponed indefinitely but may be reinstated any time at the pleasure of the
court. Placing a case upon the dead docket certainly constitutes neither a dismissal
nor a termination of the prosecution in the accused’s favor.” State v. Creel, 454
S.E.2d 804, 805 (Ga. Ct. App. 1995) (citations and quotation marks omitted).
Only the trial court has the ability to reinstate a dead-docketed indictment. See
O.C.G.A. § 15-6-61(a)(4)(B).
2
Case: 13-12831 Date Filed: 01/09/2015 Page: 3 of 8
In 1997, Mr. Howard was tried, convicted, and sentenced to a 20-year term
of imprisonment for a burglary not related to the 1995 indictment. See Howard v.
State, 488 S.E.2d 489, 490 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997). At that trial, the state introduced
evidence of the 1995 burglary as similar-transaction evidence. Id. There is no
evidence that suggests, and Mr. Howard does not argue here, that the sentence for
his 1997 conviction was enhanced as a result of the 1995 indictment.
On June 7, 2013, while incarcerated for violating the parole conditions on
his 1997 conviction, Mr. Howard filed this 28 U.S.C. § 2241 pre-trial habeas
corpus petition, alleging that the 1995 dead-docketed indictment violates his
constitutional speedy trial and due process rights. The District Court dismissed
Mr. Howard’s petition without prejudice, and this appeal followed.
II.
The question of whether a person is “in custody” within the meaning of 28
U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3) is one of subject-matter jurisdiction. Maleng v. Cook, 490
U.S. 488, 490, 109 S. Ct. 1923, 1925 (1989) (per curiam). We review de novo a
district court’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. Diaz v. Fla. Fourth Judicial
Circuit ex rel. Duval Cnty., 683 F.3d 1261, 1263 (11th Cir. 2012).
Federal courts have jurisdiction to entertain habeas corpus petitions “only
from persons who are ‘in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties
of the United States.’” Cook, 490 U.S. at 490, 109 S. Ct. at 1925 (quoting 28
3
Case: 13-12831 Date Filed: 01/09/2015 Page: 4 of 8
U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3)). We have construed this requirement “very liberally,” Diaz,
683 F.3d at 1264 (quotation omitted), and it is by now well-settled that the “use of
habeas corpus [is] not . . . restricted to situations in which the applicant is in actual,
physical custody,” Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236, 239, 83 S. Ct. 373, 375
(1963). Instead, petitioners need only show that they are subject to a significant
restraint on their liberty that is not shared by the general public. Id. at 240–43, 83
S. Ct. at 375–77. For example, the Supreme Court has extended habeas review to
petitioners released on parole, id. at 242–43, 83 S. Ct. at 377, released on their own
recognizance pending execution of a sentence, Hensley v. Mun. Court, 411 U.S.
345, 351, 93 S. Ct. 1571, 1575 (1973), and free on bail, Lefkowitz v. Newsome,
420 U.S. 283, 291 & n.8, 95 S. Ct. 886, 891 & n.8 (1975).
Even in light of this broad interpretation given to the phrase “in custody,”
the term still requires that the state exercise some control over the petitioner. See
Stacey v. Warden, Apalachee Corr. Inst., 854 F.2d 401, 403 (11th Cir. 1988) (per
curiam). As the Seventh Circuit has explained, “[a]lthough the word ‘custody’ is
elastic, all definitions of it incorporate some concept of ongoing control, restraint,
or responsibility by the custodian.” Samirah v. O’Connell, 335 F.3d 545, 549 (7th
Cir. 2003); see also Cook, 490 U.S. at 492, 109 S. Ct. at 1926 (“While we have
very liberally construed the ‘in custody’ requirement for purposes of federal
4
Case: 13-12831 Date Filed: 01/09/2015 Page: 5 of 8
habeas, we have never extended it to the situation where a habeas petitioner suffers
no present restraint from a conviction.”).
Section 2241 also requires a close relationship between the state’s custody
and the alleged constitutional violation. Specifically, a person must be in custody
“under the conviction or sentence under attack at the time his petition is filed.”
Cook, 490 U.S. at 490–91, 109 S. Ct. at 1925; see also Diaz, 683 F.3d at 1264
(stating that the petitioner must be “in custody pursuant to the state judgment that
is the subject of collateral attack”).
III.
To begin, the fact that Mr. Howard was incarcerated for violating the parole
conditions on his 1997 conviction does not necessarily give us jurisdiction to
review the 1995 dead-docketed indictment. Because his petition challenges only
the 1995 dead-docketed indictment as unconstitutional, and not the 1997
conviction, Mr. Howard must be in custody under the 1995 indictment in order to
satisfy Section 2241’s requirements. See Cook, 490 U.S. at 490–91, 109 S. Ct. at
1925.
Also, the mere fact that evidence of the 1995 burglary was introduced at his
1997 trial does not render Mr. Howard in custody under the 1995 indictment.
Although we have recognized that a person remains in custody even under a fully
expired conviction in situations where the conviction is used to enhance a later
5
Case: 13-12831 Date Filed: 01/09/2015 Page: 6 of 8
sentence, Means v. Alabama, 209 F.3d 1241, 1242 (11th Cir. 2000) (per curiam),
there is no evidence here that the dead-docketed indictment enhanced Mr.
Howard’s 1997 sentence. Indeed, we are not aware of any other similarly direct
relationship between the 1995 indictment and his current custody. See Van Zant v.
Fla. Parole Comm’n, 104 F.3d 325, 328 (11th Cir. 1997) (per curiam) (rejecting
argument that petitioner was in custody where relationship between alleged
constitutional violation and custody was too “speculative and remote”). And
contrary to Mr. Howard’s argument, it was not the 1995 indictment that served as
similar-transaction evidence for his 1997 conviction, but the facts that led to that
indictment. See Howard, 488 S.E.2d at 490 (describing the similar transaction
evidence as the testimony of the victim of the 1995 burglary). This evidence could
have been introduced even if Mr. Howard had never been indicted. See Palmer v.
State, 517 S.E.2d 502, 507 (Ga. 1999).
Neither is Mr. Howard in custody under the 1995 dead-docketed indictment
itself. Nothing in the record evidences that the state is exercising ongoing control
over Mr. Howard based on that indictment. See Stacey, 854 F.2d at 403. By
definition, the indictment is not active, see O.C.G.A. § 15-6-61(a)(4)(B), and
imposes no present restraints on Mr. Howard’s liberty. For instance, it does not
currently subject Mr. Howard to any reporting requirements, or limit his ability to
work, travel, or reside where he pleases. Cf. Justices of Boston Mun. Court v.
6
Case: 13-12831 Date Filed: 01/09/2015 Page: 7 of 8
Lydon, 466 U.S. 294, 301, 104 S. Ct. 1805, 1809 (1984) (holding that petitioner
was in custody where he was required to report for trial and prohibited from
“depart[ing] without leave”); Jones, 371 U.S. at 237, 243, 83 S. Ct. at 374, 377
(holding that parolee was in custody where he was “required to obtain the
permission of his parole officer to leave the community, to change residence, or to
own or operate a motor vehicle”).
In dismissing Mr. Howard’s petition, the District Court relied on our
unpublished opinion in Daker v. Baker, 263 F. App’x 809 (11th Cir. 2008) (per
curiam), for the proposition that Mr. Howard was not in custody because the state
had not issued a detainer warrant. Because it is an unpublished decision, Daker is
not binding precedent. See 11th Cir. R. 36-2. In any event, a detainer is not the
only way that Mr. Howard could have shown that he was in custody.
In Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Ky., 410 U.S. 484, 93 S. Ct. 1123
(1973), the Supreme Court considered the pre-trial habeas petition of an Alabama
prisoner who alleged that a three-year-old Kentucky indictment accompanied by an
interstate detainer warrant violated his right to a speedy trial. Id. at 486, 93 S. Ct.
at 1125. Although it held that the detainer was sufficient to show custody, the
Supreme Court expressly left open the question of “whether, if no detainer had
been issued against him, petitioner would be sufficiently ‘in custody’ to attack the
Kentucky indictment.” Braden, 410 U.S. at 489 n.4, 93 S. Ct. at 1126 n.4. This
7
Case: 13-12831 Date Filed: 01/09/2015 Page: 8 of 8
brief discussion in Braden is consistent with the Supreme Court’s recognition of
the many other ways in which a state may restrain a person’s liberty. See, e.g.,
Lydon, 466 U.S. at 301, 104 S. Ct. at 1809; Hensley, 411 U.S. at 351, 93 S. Ct. at
1575; Jones, 371 U.S. at 243, 83 S. Ct. at 377.
Based on this, if Mr. Howard had shown that he is subject to some other type
of restraint that is not shared by the general public, see Jones, 371 U.S. at 240, 83
S. Ct. at 376, he could have satisfied the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3)
even in the absence of a detainer warrant. He has shown no such restraint here.
IV.
The Georgia dead-docketed indictment does not, by itself, render Mr.
Howard “in custody” for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2241. We do not have
jurisdiction to consider his claims on habeas review.
AFFIRMED.
8