Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01808/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01808-0/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Dwight Neil Rhone,

Petitioner

-vsVance Laughlin, et al.,

Respondents.

CV-12-1808-PHX-DGC (JFM)

Report & Recommendation On Petition 

For Writ Of Habeas Corpus

I. MATTER UNDER CONSIDERATION

Petitioner, incarcerated presently and at the time of his Petition in the Adams 

County Correctional Center in Washington, Mississippi, on a federal sentence, filed a 

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on August 24, 2012 

(Doc. 1), challenging his Arizona state conviction. On February 7, 2013, Respondents 

filed their Response (“Limited Answer”) (Doc. 13) arguing that Petitioner is not in their 

custody, and has the wrong venue and respondent. Petitioner filed a Reply on May 17, 

2013 (Doc. 18) arguing that he suffered collateral consequences from his Arizona 

judgment in the course the subsequent District of Kansas federal proceedings pursuant to 

which he is currently incarcerated.

The Petitioner's Petition is now ripe for consideration. Accordingly, the 

undersigned makes the following proposed findings of fact, report, and recommendation 

pursuant to Rule 8(b), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, Rule 72(b), Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Rule 72.2(a)(2), Local Rules of Civil 

Procedure. 

/ /

/ /

/ /

Case 2:12-cv-01808-DGC Document 19 Filed 06/25/13 Page 1 of 10
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

II. RELEVANT FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. ARIZONA PROCEEDINGS

“Police found 648.8 pounds of marijuana in two vans in the garage of a house 

occupied by Rhone and four other persons. They also found large quantities of the 

materials used to package the marijuana.” (Exhibit D, Mem. Dec. at 2.) (Exhibits to the 

Answer (Doc. 13), are referenced herein as “Exhibit ___.”) On May 11, 2007, Petitioner 

and the other four persons were indicted in Maricopa County Superior Court on charges 

of possession of marijuana for sale and possession of drug paraphernalia. (Exhibit E, 

Indictment.) Petitioner proceeded to trial and was found guilty as charged. (Exhibit F, 

Verdict.) On January 23, 2008, Petitioner was sentenced to a mitigated term of four 

years imprisonment for possession of marijuana for sale and a concurrent presumptive 

term of one year imprisonment for possession of drug paraphernalia. (Exhibit G, 

Sentence.)

Petitioner filed a delayed direct appeal, which was denied on March 24, 2011. 

(Exhibit D, Mem. Dec.) He sought review by the Arizona Supreme Court (Exhibit O, 

Pet. Rev.), which was denied on September 6, 2011 (Exhibit P, Order).

B. DISTRICT OF KANSAS PROCEEDINGS

In the interim, on November 5, 2009, Petitioner and others were indicted in the 

U.S. District Court, District of Kansas on charges of conspiracy to distribute at least 

1,000 kilograms of marijuana. (Exhibit Q, Indictment.) Petitioner was convicted at trial 

of the charge (Exhibit R, Verdict), and on October 31, 2011 was sentenced to a term of 

73 months in prison, with a departure based upon time served in the Maricopa County 

case from May 2, 2007 to May 1, 2011 (Exhibit S, Sentence). 

C. PHYSICAL CUSTODY

On October 5, 2010, having been incarcerated in Arizona since his arrest on May 

2, 2007, Petitioner was released by the Arizona Department of Corrections into federal 

Case 2:12-cv-01808-DGC Document 19 Filed 06/25/13 Page 2 of 10
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

custody on six months community supervision. (Exhibit B, Letter.) He successfully 

completed the six months “community supervision” on April 6, 2011, and was 

unconditionally released. 

Petitioner has been in federal custody since October 5, 2010, and has been serving 

his federal sentence in the Adams County Correctional Center in Washington, 

Mississippi since November 22, 2011. His expected release date from federal custody is 

January 24, 2016, although he is reportedly a Jamaican national subject to an 

immigration detainer. (Exhibit A, Email.) Adams County Correctional Center is a 

contracted prison facility holding federal prisons. (Exhibit V, BOP Website.)

D. PRESENT FEDERAL HABEAS PROCEEDINGS

Petition - Petitioner commenced the current case by filing his Petition for Writ of 

Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on August 24, 2012 (Doc. 1), challenging 

his Arizona conviction. Petitioner’s Petition asserts the following grounds for relief:

(1) The trial court violated Petitioner’s constitutional right to 

represent himself and “rendered Petitioner’s waiver of counsel not 

knowing, voluntary, and intelligent”;

(2) “The trial court violated Petitioner’s constitutional rights to 

testify and present evidence on his own behalf when it granted the 

state’s motion to preclude all witnesses and evidence that Petitioner 

had not disclosed before trial”;

(3) The trial court committed fundamental error when it 

erroneously instructed the jury that it could convict Petition based 

on co-conspirator liability; and

(4) The evidence demonstrated that Petitioner was merely 

present at a house being used for marijuana packaging and was not 

sufficient to convict Petition of either drug offense.

(Order 12/27/12, Doc. 8 at 2.) Petitioner named as respondents Vance Laughlin, the 

warden at the Adams County Correctional Center in Washington, Mississippi, where 

Petitioner is presently incarcerated, and the Attorney General of the State of Arizona.

Response - On February 7, 2013, Respondents filed their Response (“Limited 

Answer”) (Doc. 13). Respondents argue that Petitioner was released from Arizona 

custody on April 6, 2011, and the state has fully exacted any punishment. Respondents 

further argue that any habeas petition must be filed in the district in which Petitioner is 

Case 2:12-cv-01808-DGC Document 19 Filed 06/25/13 Page 3 of 10
4

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

confined, citing Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 443 (2004). Finally, Respondents 

argue that the named respondent is the warden of the Adams County Correctional 

Center, and is not an officer of the State of Arizona, and that the Arizona Attorney 

General’s Office has no duty to represent him.

Reply – On May 17, 2013, Petitioner filed his Reply. Petitioner argues that he is 

in custody based upon collateral consequences of his Arizona conviction, because the

same evidence was used in both his state and federal convictions. Petitioner argues that 

but for the ineffective assistance of counsel he would have sought review in the U.S. 

Supreme Court. Petitioner argues that Arizona is the proper venue because the law 

extends habeas power to any district judge. Petitioner argues that the respondent warden 

is a state officer and has custody of him, and therefore is the proper respondent.

III. APPLICATION OF LAW TO FACTS

A. VENUE

Aided with the explanations in Petitioner’s reply, the undersigned addresses the 

issues in a sequence different from that suggested by the pleadings. Venue is addressed 

first because it is an error, which if existent, could be resolved by transferring the case to 

the proper venue.

Respondents argue that any habeas petition must be filed in the district in which 

Petitioner is confined, citing Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 443 (2004). In 

particular, Respondents cite the following portion of Rumsfeld: “The plain language of 

the habeas statute thus confirms the general rule that for core habeas petitions

challenging present physical confinement, jurisdiction lies in only one district: the

district of confinement.” (Response, Doc. 13 at 6.) 

Here, Petitioner clarifies in his Reply that he is not pursuing a “core habeas 

petition challenging present physical confinement,” but a challenge based upon collateral 

consequences. In Rumsfeld, Chief Justice Rehnquist clarified that the rule of the place of 

physical custody does not apply where the custody being challenged is not current 

Case 2:12-cv-01808-DGC Document 19 Filed 06/25/13 Page 4 of 10
5

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

physical custody. Thus, the Court’s prior decision in Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit of 

Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484 (1973) remained vital. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. at 444-445. In 

Braden, the petitioner was in custody in Alabama, but subject to a Kentucky detainer, 

and filed a petition in Kentucky challenging the Kentucky detainer. The Court found 

that the Kentucky district court had jurisdiction, notwithstanding the petitioner’s present 

detention in Alabama. 

The custody being challenged by Petitioner is not future custody, but the 

collateral consequences of his conviction in Arizona. Still, it is not a “core habeas 

petition challenging present physical confinement.” Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. at 443. Thus, 

his challenge need not be brought in the District of Mississippi where he is confined.

Moreover, in Braden the Court observed: “The writ of habeas corpus does not act 

upon the prisoner who seeks relief, but upon the person who holds him in what is alleged 

to be unlawful custody.” 410 U.S. at 494-95. Here, according to the allegations of 

Petitioner, that person is not the warden in Mississippi, but officials here, in Arizona, 

based upon the collateral consequences of the judgment imposed in Arizona.

B. RESPONDENT

Next, Respondents argue that Petitioner has improperly named the warden in 

Mississippi as the respondent. The proper respondent is addressed next because it is an 

error, which if existent, could be resolved by an amendment to the Petition.

The Rules Governing Section 2254 cases would ordinarily be consulted to 

establish the proper respondent. Rule 2 provides alternatives to two scenarios, in section 

(a) challenges to current custody where the custodian is to be named, and in section (b) 

to future custody, where the current custodian and the attorney general in the state of 

judgment. Here, Petitioner challenges collateral consequences from prior custody in 

Arizona, and therefore neither portion of Rule 2 applies. (Indeed, Rule 1(a) clarifies that 

all of the rules apply only to cases of current or future custody, although 1(b) gives the 

district court authority to apply them to other habeas cases.) 

Case 2:12-cv-01808-DGC Document 19 Filed 06/25/13 Page 5 of 10
6

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

The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 2 lay out a series of five separate 

scenarios, including: (1) current physical custody under the attacked judgment; (2) 

probation or parole under the attacked judgment, (3) custody other than the prior two, (4) 

current custody but attacking judgment imposing future custody, and (5) custody other 

than physical restraint and attacking judgment imposing future custody. Here, the third 

scenario fits. Petitioner contends he is in “custody” because of his collateral 

consequences under the judgment he attacks. Under that scenario, the Notes prescribe 

naming “the attorney general of the state wherein such action was taken.”1 And, indeed, 

Petitioner has named the Attorney General of the State of Arizona, who has responded.

Accordingly, Respondent Laughlin should be dismissed as improperly named, 

and the action maintained against the Attorney General of the State of Arizona.

C. CUSTODY

Finally, Respondent argues that the Petition must be dismissed because Petitioner 

was not “in custody” under the Arizona judgment at the time he filed his habeas petition. 

Indeed, 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c) provides for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus 

in only two situations: the prisoner is “in custody”, or the prisoner is needed to testify or 

for trial. Similarly, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) provides only for writs on “behalf of a person in 

custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court.” 

Petitioner contends that the collateral consequences of his Arizona conviction, 

e.g. the use of evidence developed in his Arizona prosecution to support his federal 

conviction, establish such custody.

In Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488 (1989), the Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and 

rejected the proposition that such collateral consequences can establish the kind of 

“custody” required to meet the mandates of §§ 2241(c) and 2254(a). In Maleng, the 

 

1

Even if this Note were not binding, the Notes observe that “the judge may allow the 

petitioner to join an additional or different party as a respondent if to do so would serve 

the ends of justice.” Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases Rule 2, Advisory Committee 

Notes. In this case, the Arizona Attorney General provides an effective respondent to 

address Petitioner’s claims, and suggests no better respondent.

Case 2:12-cv-01808-DGC Document 19 Filed 06/25/13 Page 6 of 10
7

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

sentence under the challenged conviction had fully expired, but the “conviction has been 

used to enhance the length of a current or future sentence imposed for a subsequent 

conviction.” 490 U.S. at 491. The Court observed that the earlier conviction might be 

subject to review in the course of attacking the later sentence, but it was not subject to 

direct attack when the sentence was already expired at the time of filing. Id. at 492, 494.

It is true that such collateral consequences may justify continuing an action where 

the sentence expires in the midst of the litigation. The collateral consequences keep the 

action from becoming moot (there is still relief to be granted), and “once the federal 

jurisdiction has attached in the District Court, it is not defeated by the release of the 

petitioner prior to completion of proceedings on such application.” Carafas v. LaVallee, 

391 U.S. 234, 238 (1968). 

Here, however, jurisdiction did not attach because Petitioner’s sentence was fully 

expired at the time he filed this action. While his alleged collateral consequence might 

preserve the court’s jurisdiction, it cannot create it in the first instance. “[T]he Court 

adopted in Maleng a rule that collateral consequences preclude mootness, but do not 

satisfy the ‘in custody’ requirement.” Feldman v. Perrill, 902 F.2d 1445, 1448 (9

th Cir. 

1990). 

It is true that Petitioner might be able to raise his claims indirectly in a challenge 

to his federal conviction and sentence, e.g. a motion to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255. See Feldman , 902 F.2d at 1449. Arguably this Court could so construe the 

instant petition. But that is not the action he has filed. Nor would such an action be 

appropriate in the District of Arizona but must be brought in “the court which imposed 

the sentence,” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a), in this instance in the District of Kansas. See 

Feldman, 902 F.2d at 1450 (“motion to vacate was heard by the same district court judge 

who had originally sentenced him”). 

Accordingly, Petitioner may not maintain the instant action, and this Court cannot 

construe the filing into a challenge over which this Court would have jurisdiction. 

Case 2:12-cv-01808-DGC Document 19 Filed 06/25/13 Page 7 of 10
8

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

Therefore, the existing Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 should be dismissed with 

prejudice for failure to meet the “in custody” requirement.

IV. CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

Ruling Required - Rule 11(a), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, requires 

that in habeas cases the “district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability 

when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant.” Such certificates are required in 

cases concerning detention arising “out of process issued by a State court”, or in a 

proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 attacking a federal criminal judgment or sentence. 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1). 

Here, the Petition is brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and challenges 

detention pursuant to a State court judgment. The recommendations if accepted will 

result in Petitioner’s Petition being resolved adversely to Petitioner. Accordingly, a 

decision on a certificate of appealability is required. 

Applicable Standards - The standard for issuing a certificate of appealability 

(“COA”) is whether the applicant has “made a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). “Where a district court has rejected the 

constitutional claims on the merits, the showing required to satisfy § 2253(c) is 

straightforward: The petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack v. 

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). “When the district court denies a habeas petition 

on procedural grounds without reaching the prisoner’s underlying constitutional claim, a 

COA should issue when the prisoner shows, at least, that jurists of reason would find it 

debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right 

and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in 

its procedural ruling.” Id.

Standard Not Met - Assuming the recommendations herein are followed in the 

district court’s judgment, that decision will be on procedural grounds. To the extent that 

Case 2:12-cv-01808-DGC Document 19 Filed 06/25/13 Page 8 of 10
9

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’s claims are rejected on procedural grounds, under the reasoning set forth 

herein, the undersigned finds that “jurists of reason” would not “find it debatable 

whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Accordingly, to the 

extent that the Court adopts this Report & Recommendation as to the Petition, a 

certificate of appealability should be denied.

V. RECOMMENDATION

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Respondent Warden Vance 

Laughlin, be DISMISSED.

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's Petition for Writ of 

Habeas Corpus, filed August 24, 2012 (Doc. 1) be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that that to the extent the reasoning of this 

Report & Recommendation is adopted, that a certificate of appealability BE DENIED.

VI. EFFECT OF RECOMMENDATION

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules 

of Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court's judgment. 

However, pursuant to Rule 72(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties 

shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation 

within which to file specific written objections with the Court. See also Rule 8(b), Rules 

Governing Section 2254 Proceedings. Thereafter, the parties have fourteen (14) days 

within which to file a response to the objections. Failure to timely file objections to any 

findings or recommendations of the Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver of a 

party's right to de novo consideration of the issues, see United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 

328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)(en banc), and will constitute a waiver of a party's 

right to appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant 

Case 2:12-cv-01808-DGC Document 19 Filed 06/25/13 Page 9 of 10
10

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

to the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1146-

47 (9th Cir. 2007). 

Dated: June 24, 2013

12-1808r RR 13 06 12 on HC.docx

James F. Metcalf

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:12-cv-01808-DGC Document 19 Filed 06/25/13 Page 10 of 10