SEAN WRIGHT V. STATE OF ALASKA, No. 19-35543 (9th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Petitioner was accused of sexually abusing two young girls and fled Alaska soon after. The State of Alaska filed an information that same year, but Petitioner was neither apprehended nor charged by indictment until 2004, when an employment background check in Minnesota alerted Alaskan authorities to Petitioner’s whereabouts, leading to his arrest and extradition. Petitioner completed his prison sentence and probation in 2016.
Petitioner challenged the 2009 conviction as a violation of his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial because of Alaska’s delay in apprehending and indicting him after he fled. Before he filed this habeas petition, Petitioner was convicted in federal court in Tennessee for failing to register as a sex offender pursuant to its laws.
At issue in this appeal was whether Petitioner was “in custody pursuant to” the Alaska judgment he challenges when he filed his Section 2254 petition; if he wasn’t, the federal court lacks jurisdiction over it. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction Petitioner’s habeas corpus petition.
The panel explained that Petitioner failed to establish jurisdiction under his restraint-on-liberty theory for reasons similar to the Supreme Court’s rejection of his supervised release theory, that is, because Petitioner does not demonstrate that Tennessee’s sex offender registration laws establish custody “pursuant to” the Alaska judgment. The panel noted that Petitioner in no way argued that he is significantly restrained by the sex offender registration laws of Alaska.
Court Description: Habeas Corpus. The panel affirmed the district court’s judgment dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction Sean Wright’s habeas corpus petition—filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in 2018—challenging his 2009 Alaska conviction on thirteen counts of sexual abuse of a minor. In 1999, Wright was accused of sexually abusing two young girls, and fled Alaska soon after. The State of Alaska filed an information that same year, but Wright was neither apprehended nor charged by indictment until 2004, when an employment background check in Minnesota alerted Alaskan authorities to Wright’s whereabouts, leading to his arrest and extradition. Wright completed his prison sentence and probation in 2016. Wright challenged the 2009 conviction as a violation of his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial because of Alaska’s delay in apprehending and indicting him after he fled. Before he filed this habeas petition, Wright was convicted in federal court in Tennessee for failing to register as a sex offender pursuant to its laws. At issue in this appeal was whether Wright was “in custody pursuant to” the Alaska judgment he challenges when he filed his § 2254 petition; if he wasn’t, the federal court lacks jurisdiction over it. WRIGHT V. STATE OF ALASKA 3 When Wright first filed his petition, he argued that he was “in custody pursuant to” his Alaska conviction on two theories: (1) because he was serving a five-year term of supervised release by virtue of his Tennessee conviction, which he contended was a consequence of his 2009 Alaska conviction and rendered him in custody; and (2) Wright was subject to Tennessee’s sex offender registration requirements, which he maintained were a restraint on his liberty and directly attributable to the Alaska judgment. The Supreme Court squarely rejected Wright’s first theory in Alaska v. Wright, 141 S. Ct. 1467 (2021) (per curiam), and Wright’s briefing on remand from the Supreme Court acknowledged the Supreme Court’s holding that his “subsequent federal conviction and sentence did not constitute ‘custody’ for purposes of challenging the predicate Alaska sex offense conviction.” The panel therefore turned to Wright’s second theory. The panel explained that Wright failed to establish jurisdiction under his restraint-on-liberty theory for reasons similar to the Supreme Court’s rejection of his supervised release theory, that is, because Wright does not demonstrate that Tennessee’s sex offender registration laws establish custody “pursuant to” the Alaska judgment. The panel noted that Wright in no way argued that he is significantly restrained by the sex offender registration laws of Alaska. The panel wrote that even if Wright’s duty to register as a sex offender in Tennessee is in some sense causally related to his Alaska judgment, the nexus is highly attenuated. The panel wrote that Wright’s Tennessee conviction and registration requirements are both consequences that would not have arisen without his prior sex offense conviction, and if one is too remote to justify the “pursuant to” requirement, then so too is the other; mere but-for causation is not enough. 4 WRIGHT V. STATE OF ALASKA Because the connection between the Alaska judgment of conviction and Tennessee and its sex offender registration laws is attenuated, the panel did not consider whether Tennessee’s registration requirements are a restraint on his liberty. Concurring only in the judgment, Judge Rawlinson wrote that because this court is bound by the Supreme Court’s determination that Wright was not in custody when he filed his habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, she sees no need to reach the same result through a rehash of the procedural ins and outs of this case.
This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on September 2, 2020.
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.