Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01083/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01083-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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 

MGD 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

James A. Lester III, 

Petitioner, 

vs. 

United States of America, 

Respondent. 

No. CV 13-1083-PHX-DGC (JFM) 

ORDER 

Petitioner James A. Lester III, who is confined in the Arizona State PrisonKingman, Hualapai Unit, in Kingman, Arizona, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas 

Corpus Ad Prosequendum. (Doc. 1.) Petitioner has also filed a Request for Final 

Disposition of Probation Revocation Cause/Cha[r]ges-Person in State Custody Pursuant 

to Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. (Doc. 2.) The Court construes the Petition as 

one brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The Court will summarily deny the Petition and the 

Request, and dismiss this action. 

I. Background 

On January 28, 2004, Petitioner, in United States v. Lester, CR 02-00922-002-

PHX-FJM (D. Ariz. 2002), pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 

50 kilograms or more but less than 100 kilograms of marijuana. Petitioner was sentenced 

on May 10, 2004, to 27 months in prison followed by 3 years on supervised release.1

 On 

 

1 See United States v. Lester, CR 02-00922-002-PHX-FJM (D. Ariz. 2002) 

(Doc. 318). 

Case 2:13-cv-01083-DGC--JFM Document 4 Filed 08/13/13 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 

June 24, 2009, a petition to revoke supervised release in Petitioner’s federal criminal case 

was filed and an arrest warrant was issued.2

 On December 11, 2009, Petitioner was 

convicted in Maricopa County Superior Court, case CR2009-136857, of possession of 

marijuana for sale (more than 4 pounds) and sentenced to 5 years’ imprisonment in the 

Arizona Department of Corrections.3

 Petitioner is currently serving his state-court 

sentence in the Arizona State Prison-Kingman. On December 16, 2009, the United States 

Marshal lodged a detainer against Petitioner pursuant to the arrest warrant issued by the 

District Court based on the petition to revoke supervised release in Petitioner’s federal 

criminal case. (Doc. 1, Ex. A.) 

 In his Petition, Petitioner seeks to “be brought to trial within 90 days of the filing 

of this request” and “hopes to resolve the complaint, warrant, and detainer, in a timely 

manner so that justice may be served.” (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 supervised release 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”). 

 

2 See United States v. Lester, CR 02-00922-002-PHX-FJM (D. Ariz. 2002) 

(Docs. 465, 466). 

3 See http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/122009/m4013001.pdf (last visited Aug. 5, 2013). 

Case 2:13-cv-01083-DGC--JFM Document 4 Filed 08/13/13 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 

 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 supervised release violation warrant prior to the expiration of his 

current 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 Request (Doc. 2) are denied and this action is 

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 13th day of August, 2013. 

Case 2:13-cv-01083-DGC--JFM Document 4 Filed 08/13/13 Page 3 of 3