Garlotte v. Fordice, 515 U.S. 39, 5 (1995)

Page:   Index   Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next

Cite as: 515 U. S. 39 (1995)

Opinion of the Court

Federal Magistrate Judge, the District Court denied Gar-lotte's petition on the merits. App. 18.

Before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the State argued for the first time that the District Court lacked jurisdiction over Garlotte's petition. 29 F. 3d 216, 217 (1994). The State asserted that Garlotte, prior to the District Court filing, had already served out the prison time imposed for the marijuana conviction; therefore, the State maintained, Garlotte was no longer "in custody" under that conviction within the meaning of the federal habeas statute. Ibid. Garlotte countered that he remained "in custody" until all sentences were served, emphasizing that the marijuana conviction continued to postpone the date on which he would be eligible for parole. Id., at 218.

Adopting the State's position, the Fifth Circuit dismissed Garlotte's habeas petition for want of jurisdiction. Ibid. The Courts of Appeals have divided over the question whether a person incarcerated under consecutive sentences remains "in custody" under a sentence that (1) has been completed in terms of prison time served, but (2) continues to postpone the prisoner's date of potential release.2 We

granted certiorari to resolve this conflict, 513 U. S. 1123 (1995), and now reverse.3

II

The federal habeas statute authorizes United States district courts to entertain petitions for habeas relief from state-court judgments only when the petitioner is "in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of

2 Compare Fawcett v. Bablitch, 962 F. 2d 617, 618 (CA7 1992) ("in custody"); Bernard v. Garraghty, 934 F. 2d 52, 55 (CA4 1991) (same); and Fox v. Kelso, 911 F. 2d 563, 568 (CA11 1990) (same), with Allen v. Dowd, 964 F. 2d 745, 746 (CA8) (not "in custody"), cert. denied, 506 U. S. 920 (1992).

3 Garlotte, who proceeded pro se in the courts below, filed along with his petition for certiorari a motion for appointment of counsel. After we granted certiorari, we appointed Brian D. Boyle, of Washington, D. C., to represent Garlotte. 513 U. S. 1125 (1995).

43

Page:   Index   Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next

Last modified: October 4, 2007