David Saunders v. United States Parole Commissio
665 F. App'x 133
| 3rd Cir. | 2016Background
- In 1999 Saunders pled guilty in federal court to bank robbery; sentenced to 48 months plus three years supervised release, began supervised release in June 2012.
- In November 2013 a federal probation officer sought and obtained a warrant based on alleged supervised-release violations; a federal detainer was lodged while Saunders was in New Jersey county jail on new state charges.
- Saunders was later convicted in state court (receiving stolen property) and sentenced to five years; he filed two district-court applications seeking dismissal of his supervised release term, alleging due-process defects and improper USPC actions.
- The District Court construed Saunders’s filings as a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and ordered the United States Parole Commission (USPC) to answer; the USPC moved to be relieved, asserting Saunders was not a parolee under its control.
- The District Court vacated its order requiring the USPC to answer and closed the case; Saunders appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper respondent for § 2241 challenge to supervised-release detainer | Saunders named USPC as respondent challenging detainer and related procedures | USPC argued Saunders was not a parolee under its control, so the USPC is an improper respondent | Court: USPC was an improper respondent; USPPS (probation office) appears to be the correct respondent |
| Remedy for naming wrong respondent | Saunders sought relief on merits (dismiss supervised release) rather than correcting respondent | USPC proposed dismissal/summary disposition because Saunders raised no substantial question | Court: Dismissal with prejudice was improper; petitioner should be allowed to amend to name correct respondent |
| Habeas jurisdiction re: custody/detainer | Saunders challenged a form of custody (future federal consequences from detainer) | District Court held he was not in federal custody so lacked § 2241 jurisdiction | Court: District Court erred to the extent it ruled no jurisdiction; Braden permits challenges to future federal custody arising from detainers while petitioner is in state custody |
| Appropriate appellate disposition | USPC moved for summary affirmance | USPC argued appeal presents no substantial question | Court: Summary action appropriate but vacated District Court’s order and remanded for proceedings consistent with opinion (leave to amend/respondent substitution) |
Key Cases Cited
- Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426 (2004) (proper habeas respondent is the person who has custody; name warden for present physical custody)
- Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484 (1973) (habeas may challenge future imposition of custody based on detainer while petitioner is in state custody)
- Carchman v. Nash, 473 U.S. 716 (1985) (defines a detainer and explains its effect)
- Welch v. Folsom, 925 F.2d 666 (3d Cir. 1991) (finality and appealability when district court ends litigation)
- West v. Louisiana, 478 F.2d 1026 (5th Cir. 1973) (failure to name proper respondent is procedural and may be cured by amendment)