Fletcher v. Roal

Filing 3

ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Philip M. Frazier. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that respondent shall answer the petition or otherwise plead within thirty days of the date this order is entered. Signed by Chief Judge David R. Herndon on 9/4/2012. (tjk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JUSTIN L. FLETCHER, 08958-030,
Petitioner,
v.
WENDY ROAL, Warden,
USP MARION,
Respondent.

Case No. 12-cv-00030-DRH
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

HERNDON, Chief Judge:
Before the Court is petitioner Justin L. Fletcher’s petition for a writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1) challenging the Bureau of
Prisons’ (“BOP”) decision to limit his residential reentry center (RRC) placement
to 120 days.

The petitioner is currently serving a sentence of 20 months

imprisonment for the offense of possession of child pornography (18 USC §
2252), following his December 15, 2010, conviction in the Southern District of
Iowa. The petitioner’s projected release date is September 13, 2012.
While the petitioner was confined at the United States Penitentiary in
Marion, Illinois (“USP Marion”), the petitioner’s unit team reviewed his request for
RRC placement and recommended a placement range of 1-120 days.

On June

20, 2011, the petitioner requested additional RRC placement per the Second
Chance Act. The petitioner’s request for additional RRC placement was denied on
Page 1 of 3

June 23, 2011. The petitioner filed a Regional Administrative Remedy Appeal
which was denied on July 19, 2011. Thereafter, the petitioner filed this action
naming as Respondent Wendy Roal, the warden of USP Marion. 1
Without commenting on the merits of petitioner’s claims, the Court
concludes that the petition survives preliminary review under Rule 4 and Rule
1(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in United States District Courts. 2
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that respondent shall answer the petition or
otherwise plead within thirty days of the date this order is entered.

This

preliminary order to respond does not, of course, preclude the government from
making whatever waiver, exhaustion, or timeliness arguments it may wish to
present.

Service upon the United States Attorney for the Southern District of

The Court notes that, shortly after the filing of this action, the petitioner was
transferred from USP Marion to a prison outside this judicial district, the CCM in
Kansas City, Kansas, where the BOP’s online inmate locator system confirms, the
petitioner currently remains confined. Usually, a prisoner’s immediate custodian
is the only proper respondent to a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See al-Mari
v. Rumsfeld, 360 F.3d 707, 712 (7th Cir. 2004). The fact that the petitioner has
been transferred outside this district does not affect the Court’s jurisdiction, given
that when his petition was filed, Wendy Roal, his custodian at the time, was within
this district. See Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 440, 124 S.Ct . 2711, 159
L.Ed.2d 513 (2004) (citing Ex parte Mitsuye Endo, 323 U.S. 283, 306, 65 S.Ct.
208, 89 L.Ed. 243 (1944). See also Harris v. Warden, 425 F.3d 386, 389 (7th
Cir. 2005) (resolving 2241 petition and stating that the “identity of the custodian
and the location of the litigation concern venue and personal jurisdiction, rather
than subject-matter jurisdiction”). The Court merely notes that the warden of
CCM Kansas is now the petitioner’s immediate custodian. The Court will leave it
to the parties to seek appropriate substitution. See Harris v. Warden, 425 F.3d
386, 389 (7th Cir. 2005) (indicating that the government should have made the
“appropriate substitution” when a prisoner with a habeas corpus petition pending
in this Court was transferred out of this district).
2
Rule 1(b) of those Rules gives this Court the authority to apply the rules to other
habeas corpus cases.
1

Page 2 of 3

Illinois, 750 Missouri Avenue, East St. Louis, Illinois, shall constitute sufficient
service.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Local Rule 72.1(a)(2), this
cause is referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for further pre-trial
proceedings.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this entire matter be REFERRED to a
United States Magistrate Judge for disposition, as contemplated by Local Rule
72.2(b)(2) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), should all the parties consent to such a
referral.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 4th day of September, 2012.

Digitally signed by
David R. Herndon
Date: 2012.09.04
17:30:21 -05'00'
Chief Judge
United States District Court

Page 3 of 3