Sandy v. United States Probation and Pretrial Services

Background

Kester Sandy filed a petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Habeas corpus is a procedure for challenging a person’s custody. Sandy challenged his 2004 federal conviction for possessing a firearm as a convicted felon. He relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Rehaif v. United States, which held that, in such cases, the government must prove that the defendant knew he was a felon when he possessed the firearm. Sandy asserted that he did not know he was a convicted felon when he purchased the firearm.

Sandy had already served the 78-month prison sentence imposed for that conviction, but he had not begun the related three-year supervised-release term because he was serving a separate state sentence. He was incarcerated at Otisville Correctional Facility. This was his third petition concerning the 2004 federal conviction. His earlier petitions were dismissed or left unresolved on questions about the proper court and proper respondent, including which district would supervise his future release.

Jurisdiction and Proper Respondent

The court relied on 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and Rumsfeld v. Padilla to explain that a habeas petitioner must name the person or entity with custody or legal control over the challenged custody. For a challenge to a future supervised-release term, the proper respondent is the chief probation officer in the district where the petitioner will serve supervised release, because that office will have legal control over the supervised release. The court also noted that supervised-release conditions generally require a defendant to report to the probation office in the federal district where the defendant is authorized to reside, unless otherwise instructed.

Sandy did not challenge his current confinement at Otisville. He challenged his future supervised release, but he had not told the court whether he planned to serve that term in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the Southern District of New York, or another district. Without that information, the court could not determine whether it had jurisdiction—that is, legal authority over the respondent and the case.

Order

The court ordered Sandy to file an amended petition by December 29, 2022. The amended petition must state where he intends to serve his supervised-release term and name the chief probation officer of that district as the respondent. The order did not grant or deny relief on Sandy’s Rehaif challenge and did not decide whether his conviction was valid. Judge Jennifer L. Rochon also directed the Clerk of Court to mail Sandy a copy of the order.