Walter Leroy Moody, Jr. v. Warden Holman CF, 887 F.3d 1281

Walter Leroy Moody, Jr. (federal inmate) was convicted in 1991 on federal bombing charges and sentenced to multiple consecutive life terms; remanded to U.S. Marshals and imprisoned in USP Marion.
Alabama later prosecuted Moody for the 1989 murder of Judge Robert Vance; Moody was brought to Alabama custody under a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum that contemplated return to federal custody after state proceedings.
Alabama convicted Moody and sentenced him to death in 1997; a 1998 federal detainer requested notice before state release so federal authorities could assume custody, but did not demand immediate return.
Moody has remained in Alabama custody on death row for ~20 years; the United States told the Court it does not object to Alabama retaining custody to carry out the death sentence.
Moody filed a counseled § 2241 habeas petition asserting (1) Alabama wrongfully retained him in violation of the ad prosequendum writ, federal regulations, and due process, and (2) his federal life sentences must be served before Alabama may execute him.
The district court dismissed for lack of Article III standing and as an unauthorized second/successive § 2254 petition; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed dismissal but on merits grounds, concluding Moody has standing and his § 2241 claim is proper, yet fails on the merits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing to challenge state custody	Moody: Alabama’s retention causes imminent injury (execution) so he has Article III standing	Alabama: prior precedent bars prisoner from contesting inter-sovereign custody; no personal stake	Court: Moody has standing (injury-in-fact, causation, redressability)
Whether claim is an unauthorized second/successive § 2254	Moody: claim challenges execution (manner), not validity of state conviction	Alabama: claim implicates state judgment and thus is a successive § 2254	Court: claim is properly brought under § 2241 (execution/manner), not a successive § 2254
Whether federal government’s actions/rights require return to federal custody before execution	Moody: writ/regulations & federal sentences require return to BOP to serve federal terms first	U.S./Alabama: federal government has not asserted objection and may waive primary custody; detainer indicates intent to defer custody	Court: U.S. can waive primary custody; Moody has no cognizable right to demand serving federal sentences first; claim fails on merits
Due process challenge to transfer under ad prosequendum writ	Moody: lacked opportunity to challenge the writ/transfer, violating due process	Alabama/U.S.: any challenge should have been raised when transfer/detainer occurred; precedent rejects pre-transfer hearing right	Court: did not reach full development of this claim; noted many courts reject a required pre-transfer hearing and claim untimeliness

Ponzi v. Fessenden, 258 U.S. 254 (1922) (Attorney General’s consent can permit transfer of federal prisoner for state prosecution so long as it does not prevent enforcement of federal sentence)
Morse v. United States, 267 U.S. 80 (1925) (comity rule in criminal cases is limited; alleged comity violations are generally not cognizable on habeas)
Kelley v. Oregon, 273 U.S. 589 (1927) (prisoner has no vested constitutional right to serve an unexpired sentence before a subsequently imposed sentence is executed)
Buchalter (United States ex rel. Buchalter v. Warden of Sing Sing Prison), 141 F.2d 259 (2d Cir. 1944) (prisoner lacks a legal ‘right’ to require serving remainder of federal sentence when U.S. consents to state custody)
Remeta v. Singletary, 85 F.3d 513 (11th Cir. 1996) (inter-sovereign disputes over the order of serving sentences are matters of comity between jurisdictions and not federal habeas relief)
Magwood v. Patterson, 561 U.S. 320 (2010) (defining scope of "second or successive" habeas petitions with respect to the judgment challenged)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (establishing the three-part Article III standing test)