Rodriguez v. Wiley

Filing 2

ORDER, CASE TRANSFERRED to District of Colorado, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 7/2/2009. CASE CLOSED. (Sant Agata, S)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 v. 13 R. WILEY, 14 Respondent. 15 16 Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 17 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 18 On June 26, 2009, Petitioner, who is currently incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary 19 in Florence, Colorado, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in the United States District Court 20 for the Eastern District of California, challenging that facility's withdrawal of money from 21 Petitioner's inmate account when he has less than ten dollars in the account. (Doc. 1). Through the 22 Court's own review of the Bureau of Prison's website, it has determined that Respondent "R. Wiley" 23 is the warden of the facility where Petitioner is presently incarcerated in Florence, Colorado. That 24 facility is located within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District of 25 26 27 28 1 / OSIEL RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, 1:09-cv-01119-BAK-GSA (HC) ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Colorado, and is not within the jurisdiction of this Court.1 Federal courts have authority to grant writs of habeas corpus "within their respective jurisdictions." 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The court issuing the writ must have personal jurisdiction over the custodian. See, Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court, 410 U.S. 484, 495, 93 S.Ct. 1123, 35 L.Ed.2d 443 (1973); Malone V. Calderon, 165 F.3d 1234 (9th Cir. 1999); Subias v. Meese, 835 F.2d 1288, 1289 (9th Cir.1987). Without such jurisdiction, the Court has no authority to direct the actions of the restraining authority. See, Malone, 165 F.3d at 1237. In the interests of justice, a federal court may transfer a case filed in the wrong district to the correct district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); Starnes v. McGuire, 512 F.2d 918, 932 (D.C. Cir. 1974). The Petitioner in the instant case is not incarcerated at a facility within this Court's jurisdiction. Accordingly, in the interests of justice, the Court HEREBY ORDERS the instant action be transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Colorado.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 6i0kij

July 2, 2009

/s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
P e t i t i o n e r notes that he previously filed two actions in this Court when he was incarcerated at the United States P r i s o n , Atwater, California, which is within the jurisdiction of this Court, and that those actions were allowed to proceed until th e y were dismissed. In this case, however, when Petitioner filed the instant petition he was already incarcerated within the j u r is d i c tio n of the District of Colorado, not within the jurisdiction of this Court. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed infra, th e Court cannot simply allow this case to proceed as it did with the prior two actions.
1

2