RAGAN
v.
FLA DEPT CORRECTIONS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A parolee remains 'in custody' for purposes of federal habeas corpus review under § 2254, and thus parole status does not toll the one-year limitation period.
Petitioner filed a § 2254 habeas petition after the one-year limitation period expired. Petitioner argued he was not 'in custody' during a period of p…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse State Custody cases and more on FLexlaw
This Court has considered, without hearing, the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 17, and has also reviewed de novo Petitioner’s objections, ECF No. 18. The report and recommendation explains in detail why Petitioner failed to seek relief under § 2254 before the one-year limitation period expired. Petitioner objects, noting that the “one-year period of limitation applies to the filing of a 2254 habeas corpus petition by an inmate in state custody . . . .” and that he was not “in custody” between October 2010 and July 2020 because he had been released on parole. ECF No. 18 at 1 (emphasis in original). Petitioner’s objection is incorrect. While on parole, Petitioner remained “in custody” for purposes of § 2254, and thus his parole status had no effect on the one-year limitation period with respect to his pending § 2254 petition. See Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236, 242–43 (1963) (holding that a parolee remains “in custody” for purposes of federal habeas corpus
review); Givens v. St. Bd. of Pardons and Paroles, 743 F. App’x 418, 419 n.1 (11th Cir. 2018) (applying Jones). Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED: The report and recommendation, ECF No. 17, is accepted and adopted, over the Petitioner’s objections, as this Court’s opinion. Respondent’s motion to dismiss, ECF No. 13, is GRANTED. The Clerk shall enter judgment stating, “Petitioner’s
habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is DISMISSED with prejudice as untimely.” A certificate of appealability is DENIED. The Clerk shall close the file. SO ORDERED on July 11, 2023.
s/Mark E. Walker ____ Chief United States District Judge