Roderick Howard v. Warden
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 381
| 11th Cir. | 2015Background
- 1995: Muscogee County, GA grand jury returned an indictment charging Howard with burglary; the indictment was never tried and in 1996 the state court placed it on the "dead docket," meaning prosecution is postponed indefinitely but may be reinstated by the court.
- 1997: Howard was tried, convicted, and sentenced for a different burglary; testimony about the 1995 incident was admitted as similar-transaction evidence at that trial.
- Howard does not claim his 1997 sentence was enhanced by the 1995 indictment and there is no record the 1995 indictment affected his later confinement.
- June 7, 2013: While incarcerated for a parole violation on the 1997 conviction, Howard filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 pre-trial habeas petition challenging the constitutionality of the 1995 dead-docketed indictment (speedy trial and due process claims).
- The district court dismissed Howard’s petition for lack of jurisdiction, concluding he was not "in custody" under the 1995 indictment; Howard appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Howard is "in custody" under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3) with respect to the 1995 dead-docketed indictment | Howard: The dead-docketed indictment (pending ~19 years) restrains his liberty and thus permits § 2241 review of speedy-trial/due-process claims | State: Dead-docketing suspends prosecution and imposes no present restraints; Howard is not in custody under the 1995 indictment | Court: Dead-docketed indictment alone does not constitute custody under § 2241; no jurisdiction to hear the habeas petition |
| Whether incarceration for a separate 1997 conviction brings the 1995 indictment within § 2241 custody requirement | Howard: His current incarceration (parole violation) ties him to the 1995 indictment for § 2241 purposes | State: Custody must be under the conviction/sentence challenged; Howard is in custody under the 1997 conviction, not the 1995 indictment | Court: Petitioner must be in custody under the specific conviction/indictment challenged; incarceration for the 1997 conviction does not satisfy § 2241 for the 1995 indictment |
| Whether admission of evidence from the 1995 incident at the 1997 trial creates a sufficient connection between current custody and the 1995 indictment | Howard: Use of the 1995 matter at the 1997 trial shows a concrete link making him "in custody" under the 1995 indictment | State: The trial used facts, not the indictment itself; no enhancement or legal dependence on the 1995 indictment is shown | Court: Admission of similar-transaction evidence without sentence enhancement or other legal effect is insufficient to establish custody under the 1995 indictment |
| Whether absence of an outstanding detainer precludes § 2241 jurisdiction | Howard: Braden left open whether custody exists without a detainer; other restraints may suffice | State: No detainer or other state-imposed restraints tied to the 1995 indictment exist here | Court: A detainer is sufficient but not necessary; however, Howard showed no alternative restraint—dead-docketing alone fails to establish custody |
Key Cases Cited
- Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488 (custody requirement is jurisdictional for habeas review)
- Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236 (habeas may reach nonphysical custody where significant restraints exist)
- Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Ky., 410 U.S. 484 (detainer can supply custody for pretrial attack; left open custody without detainer)
- Justices of Boston Mun. Court v. Lydon, 466 U.S. 294 (reporting and travel restrictions can constitute custody)
- Hensley v. Mun. Court, 411 U.S. 345 (release on own recognizance can qualify as custody)
- Lefkowitz v. Newsome, 420 U.S. 283 (bail status can qualify as custody)
- Diaz v. Florida Fourth Judicial Circuit, 683 F.3d 1261 (Eleventh Circuit applies liberal construction of "in custody")
- Stacey v. Warden, Apalachee Corr. Inst., 854 F.2d 401 ("custody" requires ongoing state control or restraint)
- Samirah v. O'Connell, 335 F.3d 545 (custody definitions incorporate ongoing control or responsibility)
- Means v. Alabama, 209 F.3d 1241 (an expired conviction used to enhance later sentence can sustain custody)
- Van Zant v. Florida Parole Commission, 104 F.3d 325 (remote or speculative links between custody and challenged action are insufficient)