SCOTTIE LAY V. GILL, No. 13-15190 (9th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 28 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SCOTTIE B. LAY, No. 13-15190 Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:12-cv-01250-JLT v. MEMORANDUM* GILL, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Jennifer L. Thurston, Magistrate Judge, Presiding** Submitted May 13, 2014*** Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. Federal prisoner Scottie B. Lay appeals pro se from the district court s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). *** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the denial of a section 2241 petition de novo, see Reynolds v. Thomas, 603 F.3d 1144, 1148 (9th Cir. 2010), abrogated on other grounds by Setser v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 1463 (2012), and we affirm. Lay contends that he is entitled to credit toward his federal sentence for the time he spent in federal custody pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum. The argument is unpersuasive because he remained subject to the state s jurisdiction during the time he spent in federal custody pursuant to the writ. See Taylor v. Reno, 164 F.3d 440, 445 (9th Cir. 1998). The record reflects that the credits earned during that period were applied to Lay s state sentence, and therefore they cannot be credited towards his federal sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b); Allen v. Crabtree, 153 F.3d 1030, 1033 (9th Cir. 1998) (section 3585(b) disallows double crediting for time served). Lay also contends that the district court erred when it held his habeas corpus petition to the high standard applied to legal findings of lawyers. The record does not support this contention. AFFIRMED. 2 13-15190

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.