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