Wilson v. Fikes

Background

Robert Hugh Wilson, proceeding without a lawyer, pleaded guilty in May 2015 to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. He received a 124-month prison sentence followed by five years of supervised release. He was serving the prison sentence at the Federal Correctional Institution at Sandstone, Minnesota.

Wilson filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a federal procedure for challenging present or imminent unlawful custody. He relied on United States v. Haymond and argued that the supervised-release portion of his sentence should be carried out immediately. He contended that doing so would reduce the time he served in prison and avoid Fifth and Sixth Amendment problems. He also argued that Haymond’s reasoning conflicted with Johnson v. United States.

Report and Recommendation and Objection

Magistrate Judge Katherine Menendez recommended dismissing the petition without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. She concluded that Wilson’s claim was premature because his supervised release had not been revoked and might never be revoked. She also recommended denying Wilson’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning without paying the required filing fees, because she recommended dismissal of the petition.

Wilson objected. He clarified that he was challenging the current imposition of supervised release rather than the validity of a possible future revocation. But his arguments continued to depend on the consequences of a future revocation proceeding.

Court’s Analysis

The district court reviewed the challenged portions of the recommendation independently. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3), a federal court has jurisdiction over a petition only when the petitioner is “in custody” for violating the Constitution, federal law, or a treaty. The court held that the entirely speculative possibility of a future violation and future revocation did not satisfy that requirement.

The court also rejected Wilson’s interpretation of Haymond and Johnson. It stated that neither decision required the court to reduce Wilson’s prison sentence by the months corresponding to his supervised-release term. Because there was no current reason to believe that Wilson would later be in custody as a result of supervised-release revocation, the court concluded that the petition was premature. The court did not reach the underlying constitutional merits of Wilson’s proposed challenge to the sentence.

Disposition

The court overruled Wilson’s objection, adopted Magistrate Judge Menendez’s Report and Recommendation in its entirety, dismissed the action without prejudice, and denied Wilson’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. Judgment was ordered to be entered accordingly.