Anthony Kevin Fields v. Eric Holder et al

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 8/18/2014. (c/m 8/18/2014 aos, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

ANTHONY KEVIN FIELDS
Petitioner,
v.

*

ERIC HOLDER, ATTORNEY GENERAL
UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION
WILIAM SMITH, WARDEN
Respondents.

*

*

CIVIL ACTION NO. GJH-14-2478

*
*****

MEMORANDUM
Anthony Kevin Fields ("Fields") is being held at the Central Detention Facility (District of
Columbia ("D.C.") Jail). On August 4,2014, the court received for filing Fields's 28 U.S.C.

S 2241

petition for habeas corpus relief alleging that he is being prosecuted and held illegally. Affording
this self-represented petition a generous construction pursuant to the dictates of Haines v. Kerner,
404 U.S. 519 (1972), Fields seemingly claims that he pled guilty to several parole violation charges
in December of2012, and the U.S. Parole Commission ("Commission") 'jumped the guidelines" by
imposing a new term of 42 months imprisonment, but no new term of supervised release. ECF No.
1. He claims that on February 1, 2013 the Commission voided their aforementioned

action on

technical reasons and that as of June 13,2013, his sentence ran out without him hearing from the
Commission.

Fields states that he only found out about thc sentence when his case manager

contacted the Commission.

!d., pp. 2-4

Fields further contends that he was detained on a ncw misdemeanor charge on May 24, 2014,
but he cannot make bond because the Commission has placed a hold on him. He asserts, however,
that the Commission has no jurisdiction over him because his sentence expired.
from confinement and an injunction against the Commission.

fd., pp. 4-5

He seeks release

District courts are required to screen all civil cases brought by inmates.
Wrigglesworth,

114 F.3d 601, 608 (6th

Cir. 1997).

See McGore v.

In conducting this review, courts should

examine venue and jurisdiction, identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims that are
frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief
from a defendant who is immune from such relief. The screening is necessary to determine whether
defendantslrespondents

should be required to respond to the action.

The undersigned observes that jurisdiction over this habeas corpus petition lies in the federal
district court where Field's custodian is located. See Rums/eld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426,434-35
(2004 ) (confirming that proper respondent in habeas action is a petitioner's warden); Stokes v. United
States Parole Comm 'n, 374 F.3d 1235, 1239 (D. D.C. Cir. 2004) (district court "may not entertain a
habeas petition involving present physical custody unless respondent custodian is within its territorial
jurisdiction").

After Padilla, a court may only entertain a habeas petition involving current physical

custody if the immediate custodian is within that court's jurisdiction. Fields filed this action while
confined at the Central Detention Facility (D.C. Jail). He is not confined in Maryland. Given these
circumstances, this court has no personal jurisdiction to adjudicate his 28 U.S.C. ~ 2241 petition.
The court will dismiss the petition without prejudice by separate Order. Assuming he has set out
viable grounds under ~ 2241, Fields may refile his petition, along with the $5.00 filing fee or
indigency motion in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

Date: August

,2014.

JUdwR~-RR-O-D-H-A-Z-EL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
2