Garmon Coats v. Dan Smith, No. 09-15663 (9th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 07 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GARMON COATS, No. 09-15663 Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:08-cv-00666-LJO v. MEMORANDUM * DAN SMITH, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Lawrence J. O Neill, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 23, 2010 ** Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges. Garmon Coats appeals pro se from the district court s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253, and we affirm. Coats contends the district court erred by denying his petition because he * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). was entitled to credit toward his federal sentence for the time he spent in state custody. This contention fails because the state maintained primary jurisdiction over Coats when he appeared in federal court. See Taylor v. Reno, 164 F.3d 440, 445 (9th Cir. 1998). Coats was therefore not in federal custody for purposes of commencing his federal sentence. See id.; see also Thomas v. Brewer, 923 F.2d 1361, 1366-67 (9th Cir. 1991) (state prisoner s status does not change when transferred to federal custody by writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum). Accordingly, the district court did not err by concluding that Coats was not entitled to relief. AFFIRMED. 2 09-15663
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.
