Louis Matthew Clements v. State of Florida

USCA11 Case: 21-12540 Document: 60-1 Date Filed: 02/09/2023 Page: 1 of 46 [PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 21-12540 ____________________ LOUIS MATTHEW CLEMENTS, Petitioner-Appellant, versus STATE OF FLORIDA, FLORIDA ATTORNEY GENERAL, SECRETARY, DOC, Respondents-Appellees. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 2:17-cv-00396-JLB-NPM ____________________ USCA11 Case: 21-12540 Document: 60-1 Date Filed: 02/09/2023 Page: 2 of 46 2 Opinion of the Court 21-12540 Before JORDAN, ROSENBAUM, and NEWSOM, Circuit Judges. JORDAN, Circuit Judge: When Congress first gave federal courts the authority to is- sue writs of habeas corpus, it limited relief to persons held by fed- eral authorities. See Judiciary Act of 1789, § 14, 1 Stat. 81, 81-82; Ex Parte Dorr, 44 U.S. 103, 105 (1845). Congress generally extended habeas corpus relief to state prisoners after the Civil War and did so by making the writ available to “any person” who “may be re- strained of his or her liberty” in violation of the laws of the United States. See Habeas Corpus Act of 1867, ch. 28, § 1, 14 Stat. 385, 385-86; Dep’t. of Homeland Sec. v. Thuraissigiam, 140 S. Ct. 1959, 1976 (2020). See generally Brandon L. Garrett & Lee Kovarsky, Federal Habeas Corpus: Executive Detention and Post-Conviction Litigation 100 (Foundation Press 2013) (“Passed alongside the Civil War Amendments, the Habeas Corpus Act of 1867 permitted all state prisoners to file habeas petitions in federal court.”). Since 1874, a person seeking federal habeas corpus relief from a state court judgment must—among other things—be “in custody.” See Medberry v. Crosby, 351 F.3d 1049, 1055 (11th Cir. 2003) (quoting former Rev. Stat. § 753). The “in custody” require- ment has remained unchanged through subsequent legislative re- visions of the various habeas corpus statutes. See, e.g., Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 462 n.17 (1953) (quoting the 1948 version of 28 U.S.C. § 2254); Act of Nov. 2, 1966, Pub. L. 89-711, § 2, 80 Stat. 1104, 1105 (placing “in custody” language in § 2254(a)). The USCA11 Case: 21-12540 Document: 60-1 Date Filed: 02/09/2023 Page: 3 of 46 21-12540 Opinion of the Court 3 Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, passed by Congress in 1996, left intact the “in custody” language in § 2254(a). See Pub. L. 104-132, Title I, § 104, 110 Stat. 1214, 1217. See also Brian R. Means, Introduction to Habeas Corpus: A Primer on Federal Col- lateral Review 105-06 (2022) (“Nor did Congress when enacting the dramatic changes to federal postconviction review as part of the 1996 Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act affect the Su- preme Court’s custody jurisprudence.”). As relevant here, custody generally means physical deten- tion or confinement. See, e.g., 1 Shorter Oxford English Dictionary 584 (5th ed. 2002) (“Imprisonment.”); The American Heritage Dic- tionary of the English Language 450 (4th ed. 2009) (“The state of being detained or held under guard, especially by the police.”). Since the early 1960s, however, the Supreme Court has not inter- …

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals