Ruben Diaz v. State of Florida Fourth Judicial Circuit
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 11821
| 11th Cir. | 2012Background
- Diaz challenged state racketeering convictions under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) but the district court dismissed for lack of custody jurisdiction because Diaz had completed his state sentence prior to filing.
- Diaz initially received a federal sentence of 150 months to run concurrently with any state sentence; the state later imposed additional term structure to align federal and state credits, with federal commencement set by a nunc pro tunc order.
- Diaz fully satisfied the state sentence on January 9, 2009 and was transferred to federal custody, where his federal sentence commenced March 24, 2004 and projected to end in 2013.
- The BOP and courts treated Diaz as serving a single stream of custody under separate sovereigns, with the federal sentence running concurrently with state terms.
- Diaz filed his § 2254 petition in September 2009; the central question was whether he remained in custody under the state's judgment at that time.
- The Eleventh Circuit held Diaz was not in custody under a state judgment at filing because the state sentence had fully expired and Diaz was in federal custody.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Diaz 'in custody' under the state judgment at petition filing? | Diaz (Diaz) contends Garlotte coerces custody despite state sentence expiry. | Diaz argues ongoing state custody maintained the jurisdiction. | No; state sentence fully expired, not in custody under state judgment. |
| Does Garlotte extend 'in custody' when different sovereigns impose consecutive sentences? | Garlotte supports continued custody review for the first sentence in a series. | Garlotte is inapplicable here because Diaz is not in custody under the challenged state judgment. | Garlotte not controlling; no present restraint from the state judgment. |
| Does relief in a § 2254 petition affect current federal custody when the state sentence is completed? | Relief could shorten total incarceration under multiplicity of sentences. | Relief would not accelerate federal release or credit pre-federal custody time. | No effect on federal confinement; district court lacked jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Unger v. Moore, 258 F.3d 1260 (11th Cir. 2001) (jurisdictional standard for in custody)
- Bradley v. Pryor, 305 F.3d 1287 (11th Cir. 2002) (de novo review of district court jurisdiction)
- Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488 (1989) (in custody requirement timing)
- Garlotte v. Fordice, 515 U.S. 39 (1995) (liberal construction of in custody; consecutive sentences)
- Cook v. United States, 490 U.S. 392 (1989) (present restraint requirement)
- Brown v. Warden, Springfield Med. Ctr. for Fed. Prisoners, 315 F.3d 1268 (10th Cir. 2003) (Garlotte does not apply when not in custody under challenged sentence)
- DeFoy v. McCullough, 393 F.3d 439 (3d Cir. 2005) (consecutive sentences where different courts imposed sentences)
- Foster v. Booher, 296 F.3d 947 (10th Cir. 2002) (consecutive sentences by different state courts within same sovereign)