Selden v. Unknown Respondent

Filing 19

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 3/25/14. (mdb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
GLENN LEE SELDEN,
Petitioner,

v.

Civil Action No. 13-2004-RGA

UNKNOWN RESPONDENT,
Respondent.

MEMORANDUM
Petitioner Selden has filed a document with various titles, including "Truth
Affidavit of Mistake in the Nature of Supplemental Rules for Admiralty and Maritime
Forfeiture Claims and Assets" and "Demand for Jury Trial" (hereinafter referred to as
"Petition"). (D.I. 1) Selden is a prisoner at Tomoka Correctional Institution, and,
although the Petition is challenging to comprehend, supporting documents demonstrate
that Selden is challenging his conviction and sentence entered by the Circuit Court for
the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Hillsborough County, Florida. (D. I. 3 at 20)
Federal courts are required to liberally construe pro se filings. See Royce v.
Hahn, 151 F.3d 116, 118 (3d Cir. 1998). Nevertheless, a district court may summarily

dismiss a habeas petition "if it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any
exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief." See Rule 4, 28 U.S.C.
foil. § 2255. This is such a case. Liberally construing the Petition to be a request for
federal habeas relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the courts with jurisdiction over the
Petition are in Florida. See Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 434-35, 442 (2004)
(state prisoner challenging the constitutionality of custody that is the result of a state

court judgment of conviction, or her present physical confinement that is not the result
of a state court conviction (e.g., pre-trial detention) must file the petition in a judicial
district which can acquire in personam jurisdiction over the petitioner's warden or
custodian); Braden v. 3(Jh Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484,494-95
(1973) ("The writ ... does not act upon the prisoner who seeks relief, but upon the
person who holds him in what is alleged to be unlawful custody."). This court is located
in the State of Delaware and, therefore, does not have jurisdiction. Accordingly, the
court will summarily dismiss Selden's Petition without issuing a certificate of
appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); United States v. Eyer, 113 F.3d 470 (3d Cir.
1997); 3d Cir. L.A.R. 22.2 (2011). A separate order follows.

2