Alaska v. Wright, 593 U.S. 152

In 2009 Sean Wright was convicted in Alaska of 13 counts of sexual abuse of a minor; he completed that sentence in 2016.
After moving to Tennessee, Wright failed to register under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act and pleaded guilty in federal court to failure to register, receiving time served and five years' supervised release.
While the federal case was pending, Wright filed a habeas petition in the District of Alaska under 28 U.S.C. §§2241 and 2254, arguing the Alaska Supreme Court unreasonably applied federal law when it rejected his Sixth Amendment claims in the 2009 conviction.
The District Court dismissed the §2254 petition on the threshold ground that Wright was not “in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court” as required by §2254(a), suggesting §2255 in the Eastern District of Tennessee as the appropriate vehicle to challenge his current federal custody.
The Ninth Circuit reversed, reasoning the Alaska conviction was a necessary predicate to the federal conviction and therefore Wright was in custody pursuant to a state judgment; the panel did not decide whether §2254 or §2255 was the proper statutory route.
The Supreme Court vacated the Ninth Circuit’s judgment and remanded, holding that an expired state conviction used as a predicate for a subsequent federal conviction does not render the petitioner “in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court” under §2254(a).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether §2254(a)’s “in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court” requirement is satisfied when a state conviction was a predicate for a current federal sentence	Wright: his state conviction is a necessary predicate to the federal conviction, so he is "in custody" under the state judgment	Alaska: Maleng controls; custody is tied to the conviction imposing the current sentence, not an expired predicate	Held: Maleng controls; an expired state conviction used as a predicate does not make petitioner in custody under §2254(a)
Whether §2254 or §2255 is the proper procedural vehicle to challenge current federal custody	Wright: §2254 in Alaska is proper to attack the predicate state conviction	Alaska: District court suggested §2255 in the federal district where federal sentence was imposed is the proper route	Held: Court declined to resolve which statute applies and remanded for proceedings consistent with its custody holding

Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488 (per curiam 1989) (a petitioner is not “in custody” under an expired state conviction merely because it may enhance a subsequent sentence)
Lackawanna County District Attorney v. Coss, 532 U.S. 394 (2001) (distinguishes when a petitioner in custody under a state sentence may challenge a prior conviction)
Zichko v. Idaho, 247 F.3d 1015 (9th Cir. 2001) (Ninth Circuit precedent treating a predicate conviction as relevant to custody claims)
State v. Wright, 404 P.3d 166 (Alaska 2017) (Alaska Supreme Court decision affirming Wright’s 2009 conviction)