Clements Loses Habeas Petition in the Middle District
A disappointing opinion came out of the Middle District of Florida for the Petitioner, Louis Clements.
Clements pleaded guilty in 2008 to lewd and lascivious conduct under § 800.04(6) and got five years of sex-offender probation, which ended around 2013. His first § 2254 petition was dismissed because he wasn’t “in custody.” Clements I (11th Cir. 2023) affirmed, holding that registration and reporting alone don’t create “custody”.
He filed his second petition in 2024, lost, and appealed again. The Eleventh Circuit remanded in Clements II (2025) for the court to decide whether residency restrictions render him “in custody”. Unfortunately, the original judge, Judge Steele died, so the case went to Judge Chappell. Today Judge Chappell rendered a decision holding it does not and dismissed the Habeas Petition without prejudice.
While this is disappointing, it has little impact on FAC v Glass. “In custody” under § 2254 is a jurisdictional test about physical restraint. Closing the habeas route for people whose sentences have ended, has no bearing on a civil rights action as a vehicle through which to challenge residency restrictions.
OPINION: Clements_Opinion And Order
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
In my opinion, not only is having one’s residency restricted “being in custody”, but also being required to report in person to a jail facility (when one is under no criminal sanction nor any credible suspicion of a crime) is certainly “being in custody”.
Furthermore, one has no right to silence during these forced interrogations. Silence will get you a felony failure to register.
So, they force us to report into custody and then interrogate us with no right of silence! Some one of these happy lil’ ole’ days someone’s going to object most strenuously! This is, after all, virtually the textbook definition of tyranny.
It shows that the majority of justices, are biased, is what it shows.