United States v. Pleau
662 F.3d 1
1st Cir.2011Background
- Pleau is charged in federal court for armed robbery and murder arising from the Rhode Island incident; he is also serving an 18-year Rhode Island state sentence for related parole/probation violations.
- The United States sought Pleau's custody under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD); Rhode Island Governor Chafee denied the request citing Rhode Island's opposition to capital punishment.
- The U.S. then sought a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum to secure Pleau's presence in federal court, while Pleau moved to oppose the writ.
- The district court held Pleau lacked standing to challenge the writ and granted the writ; Pleau appealed and the Governor intervened as amicus and later as party.
- The First Circuit held the federal government may choose between the IAD and an ad prosequendum, but once IAD is invoked, the Governor's right of refusal binds and prohibits using an ad prosequendum to bypass the IAD; the writ is treated as a written request under the IAD.
- The court issued a writ of prohibition, requiring the ad prosequendum to be treated as a temporary custody request under the IAD; the Government is bound by the IAD's terms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the U.S. may bypass the IAD via ad prosequendum after invoking the IAD | Pleau (through U.S.) argues IAD governs; ad prosequendum cannot override. | U.S. contends it may choose ad prosequendum if the IAD denies; Mauro controls only partially. | Yes—the government may be bound by IAD once invoked; ad prosequendum cannot override the IAD. |
| Standing of Pleau to challenge the writ | Pleau lacks standing to contest the writ; the district court was correct. | Governor’s intervention moots standing concerns; Pleau’s challenge is justiciable. | Mooted by Governor Chafee’s intervention; merits not reached by Pleau. |
| Effect of Governor Chafee's refusal under Article IV(a) of the IAD | Governor’s refusal is consistent with IAD; ad prosequendum cannot force transfer. | The governor’s refusal would disrupt federal custody and undermine the IAD's purpose. | Governor’s denial controls; once IAD invoked, ad prosequendum cannot compel transfer. |
| Appropriate writ and remedy in light of novel IAD question | advisory writ is appropriate to decide whether IAD governs the custody issue. | supervisory (mandatory) writs apply when improper district court practice occurs. | Advisory writ of prohibition appropriate; writ will treat the June 30 writ as a written IAD request. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mauro v. United States, 436 U.S. 340 (1978) (IAD Article IV(a) preserves a governor's authority to refuse, and detainer triggers IAD; cannot view writ as override)
- United States v. Currier, 836 F.2d 11 (1st Cir. 1987) (IAD is a federal law subject to federal construction; U.S. is a party to IAD as send/receive state)
- RaShad v. Walsh, 300 F.3d 27 (1st Cir. 2002) (holding that neglecting to lodge a detainer can hinder speed; circumvention concerns under IAD)
- Bozeman, 533 U.S. 146 (2001) (statutory language should be given effect; enumerated exceptions are the only ones intended)
- United States v. Kelley, 402 F.3d 39 (1st Cir. 2005) (IAD violations cannot be excused for 'technical' missteps)