In United States v. Repp, --- F.3d ---, No. 20-50248 (9th Cir. 2021), the Court framed the issue as whether "an inmate currently serving time on one federal sentence [can] expedite the resolution of a newly lodged detainer to answer for a supervised release violation in another federal district that was triggered by his commission of the crime for which he is currently incarcerated?"
But the Court did not really answer that question. Rather, it held it did not have jurisdiction over an appeal by the inmate (Mr. Repp) from the denial of a motion to accomplish the expedited resolution.
"Chris Repp appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum directed to his current custodian, the Warden of FCI Phoenix, to transport him to Los Angeles for his initial appearance there on an arrest warrant for violating conditions of supervised release, proceedings for which a detainer has now been lodged against him with the prison. Repp is currently serving a custodial sentence for federal crimes he committed in the Eastern District of Arkansas while on supervised release from an earlier federal conviction in the Central District of California."
The Court held: "It is unclear whether Repp’s motion is more appropriately characterized as a petition for writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum, as it was captioned when proceeding pro se below, or as a motion to expedite the supervised release hearing date, as he now characterizes the motion on appeal. Regardless of how Repp characterizes his motion though, the district court’s order is not a final order or a collateral order that would support appellate review at this time."
