Opinion ID: 2035999
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: anderson's claim for habeas relief

Text: [8,9] Having resolved that the district court had jurisdiction over Anderson's habeas claim, we turn now to address the merits of the habeas claim itself. The habeas corpus writ provides illegally detained prisoners with a mechanism for challenging the legality of a custodial deprivation of liberty. [11] To secure habeas corpus relief, the prisoner must show that he or she is being illegally detained and is entitled to the benefits of the writ. [12] Anderson argues that he is entitled to day-for-day credit toward his sentence for the time that he, an erroneously released prisoner, spent at liberty. Anderson essentially believes that his sentence continued to run from July 8, 2003, the date of erroneous release, to January 3, 2005, the date he was picked up by officers, as though he were in prison the entire time. Therefore, Anderson believes the Department was obligated to release him no later than July 14, 2005, the date his sentence was originally set to expire, and that detaining him beyond that date was illegal. [13] In making this argument, Anderson invokes a line of cases under which erroneously released prisoners received sentence credit based on the belief that prematurely releasing and then reincarcerating a prisoner impermissibly interferes with the prisoner's right to expeditiously pay his or her debt to society. [14] We review this authority immediately below, then address what impact it may have on the present case in a subsequent section.