UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

SOUTH BEND DIVISION 

Wilton Eugene Sandifer, Sr., 

 Petitioner, 

v. Case No. 3:16-CV-286 JVB 

Superintendent, 

 Respondent. 

OPINION AND ORDER 

 Wilton Eugene Sandifer, Sr., a pro se prisoner, filed a habeas corpus petition challenging 

the authority of the State of Indiana to imprison him because he was not properly extradited from 

the State of Florida. Sandifer was convicted in abstentia and sentenced on January 13, 2006, by 

the Lake Superior Court under cause number 45G01-0402-FA-10. He was arrested in Florida and 

extradited to Indiana on May 9, 2015. Sandifer argues that his extradition violated the Uniform 

Criminal Extradition Act (UCEA). Specifically he argues that authorities in Florida did not adhere 

to its procedural requirements and time limits. Sandifer has not presented this claim to the State 

courts, but “[a]n application for a writ of habeas corpus may be denied on the merits, 

notwithstanding the failure of the applicant to exhaust the remedies available in the courts of the 

State.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(2). 

 The UCEA is a State law. See Michigan v. Doran, 439 U.S. 282, 288-89 (1978). “It is not 

the province of a federal habeas court to reexamine state-court determinations on state-law 

questions.” Wilson v. Corcoran, 562 U.S. 1, 5 (2010) (quotation marks, citations, and brackets 

omitted). Therefore federal habeas corpus relief cannot be granted even if Sandifer was extradited 

in violation of the UCEA. 
2 

 “In conducting habeas review, a federal court is limited to deciding whether a conviction 

violated the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 

68 (1991). Both the United States Constitution1

 and federal law,2 provide for extradition between 

States. However, 

Neither the Constitution nor the act of Congress providing for the rendition of 

fugitives upon proper requisition being made confers, either expressly or by 

implication, any right or privilege upon such fugitives under and by virtue of which 

they can assert, in the state to which they are returned, exemption from trial for any 

criminal act done therein. No purpose or intention is manifested to afford them any 

immunity or protection from trial and punishment for any offenses committed in 

the state from which they flee. On the contrary, the provision of both the 

Constitution and the statutes extends to all crimes and offenses punishable by the 

laws of the state where the act is done. 

Innes v. Tobin, 240 U.S. 127, 133 (1916) quoting Lascelles v. Georgia, 148 U. S. 537, 542 (1893). 

Therefore habeas corpus relief is not available in this case. 

 If Sandifer wants to appeal this decision, he does not need a certificate of appealability 

because he is not challenging his conviction. See Evans v. Circuit Court, 569 F.3d 665, 666 (7th 

Cir. 2009). However, he may not proceed in forma pauperis on appeal because the court finds 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal in this case could not be taken in good faith. 

 1

 Article 4, Section 2 of the Constitution provides that “A person charged in any state with treason, felony, 

or other crime, who shall flee from justice and be found in another state, shall, on demand of the executive authority 

of the state from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the state having jurisdiction of the crime.” 

2 18 U.S.C.A. § 3182 provides that: 

 Whenever the executive authority of any State or Territory demands any person as a 

fugitive from justice, of the executive authority of any State, District, or Territory to which such 

person has fled, and produces a copy of an indictment found or an affidavit made before a magistrate 

of any State or Territory, charging the person demanded with having committed treason, felony, or 

other crime, certified as authentic by the governor or chief magistrate of the State or Territory from 

whence the person so charged has fled, the executive authority of the State, District, or Territory to 

which such person has fled shall cause him to be arrested and secured, and notify the executive 

authority making such demand, or the agent of such authority appointed to receive the fugitive, and 

shall cause the fugitive to be delivered to such agent when he shall appear. If no such agent appears 

within thirty days from the time of the arrest, the prisoner may be discharged.
3 

 For these reasons, the habeas corpus petition is DENIED. The clerk is DIRECTED to 

enter judgment and close this case. Wilton Eugene Sandifer, Sr., is DENIED leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis on appeal. 

SO ORDERED on April 24, 2017. 

 s/ Joseph S. Van Bokkelen 

 JOSEPH S. VAN BOKKELEN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE