Hasanati v. State of Florida

Background

Jahi Amadi Hasanati, who was proceeding without a lawyer, was on supervised release related to a Florida state conviction and was residing in Bronx County, New York. He challenged his 2011 Florida conviction and the administration of his supervised release. His application was filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, but the court explained that a state prisoner challenging either the imposition or execution of a state sentence must generally proceed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

Hasanati’s filing challenged his conviction, sentence, confinement, and supervised-release conditions. His supervised-release claims included an objection to a condition barring him from maintaining a checking account and an argument that there was no valid contract supporting supervised release. The court noted that he did not identify a federal constitutional basis for these claims or allege facts showing that he had exhausted available state-court remedies. The court also stated that his contract theory appeared to involve state law, for which federal habeas relief is unavailable.

Recharacterization and opportunity to amend

The court stated that it intended to treat the § 2241 application as a petition under § 2254. Because Hasanati had previously filed § 2254 petitions challenging the same Florida conviction, the court concluded that converting the conviction-related claims would not prejudice his ability to bring those claims. The court noted that any new § 2254 challenge to the conviction could require permission from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit because it might be a second or later petition.

The court nevertheless gave Hasanati 30 days to notify the court if he wanted to withdraw the application rather than proceed under § 2254. If he chose to proceed, he was given 60 days to file an amended petition. The amended petition would replace the original petition rather than supplement it.

Exhaustion and potential defects in the supervised-release claims

The court explained that a state prisoner ordinarily must first give the state courts a complete opportunity to review each federal constitutional claim. Hasanati had not alleged that he presented his supervised-release claims to the state courts. The court directed him to identify the federal constitutional basis for those claims and describe the steps he had taken to exhaust them.

The court further observed that the contract argument did not appear to raise a federal question. It also found that Hasanati had not specified the constitutional basis for challenging the checking-account condition and said it was unclear whether he had a protected liberty interest under New York or Florida law in being free from special release conditions. These observations were not a final decision on the merits; the court allowed him to amend.

The court also stated that a request for an injunction concerning past conditions in Florida would be moot because Hasanati had been conditionally released. It said any claim for damages would need to be brought in a civil-rights action, and that venue for such an action would not lie in this court.

Order

The court granted Hasanati leave to file an amended § 2254 petition concerning execution of his sentence and required that it be submitted within 60 days, using the same docket number. No response or subpoenas were required at that time. The court warned that continued submission of duplicative or irrelevant materials could lead to filing restrictions and that failure to comply with the order, absent good cause, could result in denial of the petition.

The court also determined that Hasanati had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied, so a certificate of appealability would not issue. It certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying the appeal-related filing costs. The order did not resolve the underlying validity of Hasanati’s conviction or supervised-release claims.