860 F.3d 686
D.C. Cir.2017Background
- Roger C. Day Jr. was convicted in the Eastern District of Virginia in 2011 on multiple federal counts (wire fraud, money laundering conspiracy, smuggling conspiracy, aggravated identity theft, etc.) and sentenced to a lengthy term; the Fourth Circuit affirmed his conviction.
- Day repeatedly challenged his prosecution as violating the extradition treaty and the international doctrine of specialty (and dual criminality), asserting he was tried for offenses outside the extradition grant.
- After unsuccessful direct appeal and a denied 28 U.S.C. § 2255 collateral attack in the sentencing district, Day filed a pro se petition in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia seeking relief styled against the President (and invoking 18 U.S.C. § 3192).
- The D.C. district court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because Day’s immediate custodian (the Terre Haute warden) was not within the court’s territorial jurisdiction and the President is not the proper habeas respondent.
- Day appealed; the D.C. Circuit, with court-appointed amicus, affirmed, holding the court lacked jurisdiction to grant the requested habeas relief against the President and noting §2255 is ordinarily the proper vehicle for challenging a federal sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper respondent for habeas and territorial jurisdiction | Day argued the President (under §3192) is the statutory custodian and proper respondent | Government: immediate custodian is the warden where Day is confined; President not proper respondent | Court held habeas must name immediate physical custodian; D.C. lacked jurisdiction because custodian is in Indiana |
| Nature of the petition: habeas vs mandamus under §3192 | Day contended his filing is mandamus to compel the President to perform duties under §3192, not habeas | Government: substance seeks release from custody for unlawful conviction—i.e., habeas relief | Court held the petition is a habeas challenge to present confinement; §3192 claim does not change that |
| Applicability of dual-custody / Braden exception | Day suggested exceptions could permit filing outside custodian’s district | Government: Day challenges present confinement so Braden/double-custody exception does not apply | Court held Braden/dual-custody exception irrelevant because Day challenges present confinement; immediate custodian rule controls |
| Proper statutory remedy (§2241 v §2255) | Day invoked §2241 and other statutes in D.C. | Government: §2255 in sentencing court is the ordinary, exclusive remedy to challenge federal sentence | Court noted §2255 is ordinarily the sole remedy; D.C. is neither sentencing district nor custodian’s district, so relief was improper there |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Day, 700 F.3d 713 (4th Cir. 2012) (affirming Day’s convictions on direct appeal)
- Rauscher v. United States, 119 U.S. 407 (1886) (doctrine of specialty: extraditee may be tried only for offenses specified in extradition)
- Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426 (2004) (proper habeas respondent is immediate custodian; ‘‘immediate custodian rule’’)
- Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484 (1973) (discussing venue/dual-custody exception for habeas)
- Stokes v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 374 F.3d 1235 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (habeas territorial jurisdiction requires custodian within forum)