Garmon Coats v. Dan Smith

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GARMON COATS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
DAN SMITH,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 09-15663
D.C. No. 1:08-cv-00666-LJO
MEMORANDUM*
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
FILED
SEP 07 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-15663 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 of 2 --