Patrick O. Evans, Petitioner-appellant, v. Mark A. Henry, Warden; Federal Bureau of Prisons; Unitedstates Department of Justice, Respondents-appellees, 70 F.3d 1278 (9th Cir. 1995)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 70 F.3d 1278 (9th Cir. 1995) Submitted Nov. 20, 1995. *Decided Nov. 24, 1995

Before: PREGERSON, NORRIS, and REINHARDT, Circuit Judges.


MEMORANDUM** 

Federal prisoner Patrick O. Evans appeals pro se the district court's denial of his habeas corpus petition brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Evans contends that the district court erred by finding that he was not entitled to presentence sentence credits for time Evans spent in a hospital and under home confinement. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2253, 1291. We review de novo, Grady v. Crabtree, 958 F.2d 874, 874 (9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam), and vacate and remand.

In the district court Evans claimed that, during the time he was in the hospital and under house arrest, he was in the "constructive custody of the ... Bureau of Prisons and the U.S. Marshal's Service." Because the district court did not have the benefit of Reno v. Koray, 115 S. Ct. 2021 (1995) before dismissing Evans's claim, we remand for further consideration in light of that opinion. The record does not show, for example, whether Evans was in the hospital or at home under a detention or release order. See id. at 2026-27, 2029.

Finally, we decline to reach the merits of Evans's claims raised for the first time on appeal.

VACATED and REMANDED.

 *

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4. Accordingly, we deny Evans's request for oral argument, and for the appointment of counsel for purposes of oral argument

 **

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.