Santos v. State of Rhode Island
1:15-cv-10799
D. Mass.Sep 10, 2015Background
- Petitioner Richardo Santos, incarcerated at MCI Concord (MA), filed a pro se habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 alleging denial of rights under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD).
- Santos alleges Massachusetts DOC refused to file his IAD request so he could resolve an outstanding Rhode Island criminal case, and Rhode Island declined to resolve the case until after his release.
- He named the State of Rhode Island as respondent and sought an order compelling Rhode Island to honor his IAD request.
- Court directed payment of filing fee; Santos paid $5.00 and the matter proceeded.
- Court held the proper respondent is the petitioner’s immediate custodian, not the named state, and ordered substitution of Lois Russo, Acting Superintendent of MCI Concord, as sole respondent.
- Court ordered service of the petition, directed respondent to file an answer within 21 days (including victim-notification statement), and requested records on exhaustion of state remedies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper respondent in habeas petition | Santos named State of Rhode Island as respondent | Proper respondent is petitioner’s immediate custodian | Court substituted Lois Russo, Acting Superintendent, as sole respondent |
| Service and response requirements | Santos seeks relief under IAD; requested Rhode Island be ordered to honor IAD request | Respondent (custodian) must be served and permitted to respond | Court ordered service on custodian and AG, and directed respondent to answer within 21 days |
| Exhaustion and record production | Santos framed relief via § 2241 IAD template | Court may require record showing whether state remedies were exhausted; IAD challenges often considered under § 2254 | Court requested respondent include documents addressing exhaustion in the return |
| Notice of victims | Santos did not address victim-notification requirement | Respondent must notify court of any victims per federal law | Court required statement notifying court of existence of any victims as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 3771 |
Key Cases Cited
- Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426 (2004) (identifies immediate custodian as proper respondent in habeas petitions)
- Thompson v. Gelb, 63 F. Supp. 3d 125 (D. Mass. 2014) (IAD challenges can be considered via § 2254 petitions)
- Rashad v. Walsh, 300 F.3d 27 (1st Cir. 2002) (addressing speedy trial issues under the IAD through § 2254)
- White v. Duval, 29 F.3d 619 (1st Cir. 1994) (considering whether an IAD violation can be a "fundamental defect" warranting relief under § 2254)