Joaquin De Jesus Blanco v. State of Florida
817 F. App’x 794
| 11th Cir. | 2020Background
- Blanco was convicted in Florida for trafficking methamphetamine and sentenced to prison, followed by probation and a fine that was reduced to a civil judgment.
- He exhausted direct and state collateral remedies and then filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
- Court records (state docket and DOC database) showed Blanco was released from prison in 2012 and completed probation in 2014; he was not in custody or on bail for that conviction when he filed.
- The State sold the $50,000 judgment to a private debt collector; Blanco (a disabled person on fixed income under $20,000) says he cannot pay and claims the collector threatened incarceration.
- The record contained no evidence of the alleged threats, nor any showing the private collector could obtain incarceration without a hearing if Blanco cannot pay.
- The district court dismissed the § 2254 petition for lack of jurisdiction; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed, concluding Blanco was not "in custody" for habeas purposes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Blanco was "in custody" under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3) when he filed his § 2254 petition | Blanco: the outstanding fine (now a civil judgment), his inability to pay, and alleged threats by the debt collector create significant restraint amounting to custody | State: Blanco was released and completed probation; a fine reduced to a civil judgment (absent evidence the collector can jail him without a hearing) does not impose custody | Court: Not in custody; petitioner failed to show the collector could cause incarceration without a hearing, so habeas court lacked jurisdiction (affirmed) |
Key Cases Cited
- Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234 (establishes custody-at-filing requirement for habeas)
- Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488 (collateral consequences alone do not constitute custody after sentence expiration)
- Duvallon v. Florida, 691 F.2d 483 (fine-only judgment where petitioner can pay does not create custody for § 2254)
- Tate v. Short, 401 U.S. 395 (upholds imprisonment of defendants who have means but refuse to pay fines)
- Howard v. Warden, 776 F.3d 772 ("in custody" requires significant restraints beyond those shared by the public)
- Diaz v. State of Fla. Fourth Judicial Cir. ex rel. Duval Cty., 683 F.3d 1261 (custody question reviewed de novo)
- Romine v. Head, 253 F.3d 1349 (petitioner bears burden to establish entitlement to federal habeas relief)