785 F.3d 367
9th Cir.2015Background
- Daniel Zavala, a deportable alien, was transferred to ICE custody on Sept. 20, 2010 after completing a state sentence and signed a Form I-871 reinstating a prior removal order.
- ICE held Zavala from Sept. 20 to Oct. 6, 2010 (pre-indictment); a grand jury indicted him Oct. 6 and USMS took custody Oct. 7; the first indictment was dismissed for improper venue on Dec. 7, 2010.
- Zavala returned to ICE custody Dec. 10–21, 2010 (post-dismissal, pre-refiling); charges were refiled in the Central District of California Dec. 22, 2010 and he remained in USMS custody thereafter.
- BOP credited only the periods Zavala was in USMS custody and denied credit for the periods he was in ICE custody, leading Zavala to file a § 2241 habeas petition challenging the denial of § 3585(b) credit.
- The Ninth Circuit considered whether time in ICE custody counts as “official detention” under 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b) when detention is for the purpose of securing the alien’s presence for potential criminal prosecution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ICE detention pending potential prosecution is "official detention" under § 3585(b) | Zavala: ICE custody that is intended to secure presence for criminal prosecution is "official detention" and warrants credit. | Government: ICE custody never qualifies; Koray and BOP policy limit "official detention" to custody under AG/BOP/USMS control. | Court: ICE detention is "official detention" when it is detention pending potential criminal prosecution; therefore eligible for § 3585(b) credit. |
| Whether detention after filing of charges/presentment is presumptively for prosecution and thus creditable | Zavala: Post-indictment ICE custody should be credited because charges were filed and prosecution ensued. | Government: Post-indictment ICE custody still may be civil deportation custody and not creditable. | Court: Any ICE detention after indictment or filing of formal charges is presumed detention for prosecution and is creditable. |
| Allocation of burden for pre-indictment ICE detention status | Zavala: ICE should not deny credit as a matter of law; government should prove detention was for deportation. | Government: Plaintiff must prove detention was for prosecution. | Court: Government bears burden to prove pre-indictment ICE detention was for deportation (not potential prosecution); remand for evidentiary hearing. |
| Whether Koray controls to preclude ICE detention credit | Government: Reno v. Koray requires detention be under AG/BOP/USMS control to be "official detention." | Zavala: Koray concerned bail/community-treatment releases and did not address immigration detention pending prosecution. | Court: Koray does not foreclose ICE detention credit; it left open custody not under BOP control (e.g., state or immigration custody) and thus does not bar credit here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Reno v. Koray, 515 U.S. 50 (1995) (interpreting "official detention" in § 3585(b) in Bail Reform Act context; did not decide custody outside BOP/AG/USMS control)
- United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329 (1992) (holding Attorney General/BOP computes sentence credit; background on § 3585(b) statutory scheme)
- Tablada v. Thomas, 533 F.3d 800 (9th Cir. 2008) (agency interpretation of BOP Program Statement receives Skidmore consideration)
- Ratzlaf v. United States, 510 U.S. 135 (1994) (statutory-construction principle against assigning different meanings to the same statutory term)