Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_13-cv-08123/USCOURTS-azd-3_13-cv-08123-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

JDDL 

MGD 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Jorge Villa, 

Petitioner, 

vs. 

United States of America, 

Respondent. 

No. CV 13-8123-PCT-DGC (MEA) 

ORDER 

Petitioner Jorge Villa, who is confined in the Arizona State Prison-Kingman, 

Hualapai Unit, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Prosequendum. (Doc. 1.) 

The Court construes the Petition as one brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The Court will 

summarily deny the Petition and this action. 

I. Background 

On January 28, 2005, Petitioner, in United States v. Villa, CR 04-02476-001-TUCRCC (GEE) (D. Ariz. 2004), pled guilty to conspiracy to harbor and transport illegal 

aliens. Petitioner was sentenced on April 20, 2005 to three years on probation.1

 On 

March 5, 2008, Petitioner was convicted in Maricopa County Superior Court, case 

CR2007-14244, of kidnapping and aggravated assault.2

 On May 6, 2008, he was 

 

1

 See United States v. Villa, CR 04-02476-001-TUC-RCC (GEE) (D. Ariz. 2004), 

https://ecf.azd.circ9.dcn/doc1/025111277775 (Doc. 55) (last visited July 19, 2013). 

2 See http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/052008/m3175366. pdf (last visited July 18, 2013). 

Case 3:13-cv-08123-DGC--MEA Document 4 Filed 07/23/13 Page 1 of 3
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

JDDL 

sentenced to seven and nine years to be served concurrently.3 Petitioner is currently 

serving his sentence in the Arizona State Prison-Kingman. Prior to Petitioner’s 

conviction in the state criminal case, a petition to revoke probation in Petitioner’s federal 

criminal case was filed on June 25, 2007 based on failures to comply with certain 

conditions of probation.4

 

 According to Petitioner, the United States Marshal has placed a detainer on him 

pursuant to the arrest warrant issued by the District Court based on the petition to revoke 

probation in his federal criminal case. Petitioner seeks “speedy disposition of this 

complaint, warrant and detainer pursuant to Federal Criminal Procedure and United 

States Code.” (Doc. 1 at 2.) 

II. Federal Habeas Relief Not Available 

 Petitioner’s petition must be dismissed as habeas relief is unavailable. There is no 

constitutional right to disposition of probation violation charges prior to the expiration of 

a separate sentence. See Moody v. Daggett, 429 U.S. 78, 89 (1976) (holding that parolee, 

imprisoned for a crime while on parole, was not entitled to an immediate parole 

revocation hearing on an unexecuted warrant for parole violations and detainer lodged 

with his present institution of confinement); Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 783 

(1973) (finding that rights of probationers and parolees in revocation hearings are 

fundamentally identical). It is only upon execution of a warrant and custody under that 

warrant that a petitioner’s liberty interests are affected. Moody, 429 U.S. at 87 (“loss of 

liberty as a parole violator does not occur until the parolee is taken into custody under the 

warrant”). Petitioner here does not contend that the warrant issued has been executed or 

that he has been taken into custody pursuant to that warrant. Thus, he has no right to 

disposition of the probation violation warrant prior to the expiration of his current 

 

3

See http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/052008/m3175366.pdf (last visited July 18, 2013). 

4 United States v. Villa, CR 04-02476-001-TUC-RCC (GEE) (D. Ariz. 2004) 

(Doc. 64). 

Case 3:13-cv-08123-DGC--MEA Document 4 Filed 07/23/13 Page 2 of 3
- 3 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

JDDL 

sentence. See id. at 86-87; see also United States v. Garrett, 253 F.3d 443, 447-48 (9th 

Cir. 2001) (government’s postponement of plaintiff’s revocation hearing until release 

from state custody does not violate 18 U.S.C. § 3583(i)). Accordingly, Petitioner’s 

Petition and this action will be summarily dismissed. 

IT IS ORDERED: 

 (1) The Petition (Doc. 1) and this action are dismissed. 

 (2) The Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 

(3) Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Cases, in the 

event Petitioner files an appeal, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability 

because reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s procedural ruling debatable. See

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 

 Dated this 23rd day of July, 2013. 

 

Case 3:13-cv-08123-DGC--MEA Document 4 Filed 07/23/13 Page 3 of 3