Relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 must relate to “custody.”

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a), relief may be granted to a “prisoner in custody under sentence of a court established by Act of Congress claiming the right to be released . . ..”

A jury convicted Enrique Amaya of conspiracy to travel in interstate commerce with intent to commit murder (18 U.S.C. § 1958); using a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence causing death (18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and (j)); and conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five or more kilograms of cocaine (21 U.S.C. § 846). Mr. Amaya was sentenced to three concurrent life sentences.

Mr. Amaya filed a § 2255 motion challenging his conviction for using a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence causing death. (18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and (j)). He argued that after United States v. Davis, 139 S.Ct. 2319 (2019), his murder conspiracy charge was no longer a valid predicate crime of violence for his § 924(c) conviction. The district court, relying on the concurrent sentence doctrine, denied relief without reaching the merits. The judgment was affirmed. Amaya v. United States, --- F.4th --- (6th Cir. 2023).

The Sixth Circuit noted that relief cannot be granted unless a prisoner is “claiming the right to be released” from “custody” and that even if Mr. Amaya prevailed on his Davis claim he would still be serving two, concurrent life sentences. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a). Mr. Amaya did not argue that vacatur of only one concurrent sentence could be “characterized as ‘release’” so the court left that questioned unanswered.

Mr. Amaya, however, argued that the $100 special assessment that he had to pay for each of his three convictions constituted a cognizable claim. The Sixth Circuit disagreed because the case came to the court as an appeal from a collateral attack and not on direct appeal. The court explained that custody is “at the center of the collateral proceeding so the prejudice required to obtain relief must ultimately relate to the challenged custody.” Slip Opin. at 5. (Citations omitted). “The $100 special assessment does not fit the bill, so [Mr.] Amaya is not entitled to relief.” Id.