Shawn Francis Ratigan v. CATRICIA HOWARD, Warden

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SHAWN FRANCIS RATIGAN,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
CATRICIA HOWARD, Warden,
Respondent-Appellee.
No. 22-15226
D.C. No. 4:21-cv-00363-SHR-DTF
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Scott H. Rash, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 14, 2023**
Before: FERNANDEZ, FRIEDLAND, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Shawn Francis Ratigan appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing de novo, see
Tablada v. Thomas, 533 F.3d 800, 805 (9th Cir. 2008), we affirm.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
FEB 23 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 22-15226
Ratigan contends that the time he spent in state custody serving his state
sentence should be credited toward his federal sentence. We disagree. Because
the federal sentencing court was silent as to whether Ratigan’s federal sentence
was consecutive or concurrent to his anticipated state sentence, 18 U.S.C.
§ 3584(a) creates a presumption that the sentences are to run consecutively, and
Ratigan has not presented any evidence rebutting this presumption.
Ratigan also contends that under 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b) he is entitled to
custody credit because the state relinquished jurisdiction over him when he was
transferred to federal authorities for his federal criminal proceedings. This
argument is unavailing because the record shows that the federal district court
issued a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum to secure his presence for the
federal proceedings. The state of Missouri therefore retained primary jurisdiction
over Ratigan from the time of his arrest until he was received in federal custody to
begin serving his federal sentence. See Taylor v. Reno, 164 F.3d 440, 445 (9th Cir.
1998). Moreover, Ratigan has not shown that the time he spent in temporary
federal custody pursuant to the writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum was not
credited towards his state sentence. See also 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b); United States v.
Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 337 (1992) (a defendant cannot “receive a double credit for
his detention time”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --