Wetmore v. Johns

Filing 4

Judge Patti B. Saris: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. The petition is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE(PSSA, 3)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
JOEL WETMORE,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN TRACY JOHNS,
Respondent.

C.A. No. 12-10417-PBS

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
April 9, 2012
Saris, U.S.D.J.
Pro se habeas petitioner Joel Wetmore, who is confined at
FCI Butner in Butner, North Carolina, brings this action under 28
U.S.C. § 2241 in which he challenges his commitment as a
“sexually dangerous person” under Section 302(4) of the Adam
Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109248, Title 111, §302(4), 120 Stat. 587, 620-22 (2006), codified
at 18 U.S.C. §§ 4247-4248.

See United States v. Wetmore, C.A.

No. 07-12058-PBS (D. Mass.), Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law, Mar. 2, 2011, docket entry #193.

The petition has not been

served so that the Court may review the petition to determine
whether the respondent should be required to reply.

See 28

U.S.C. § 2243 (providing that, if “it appears from the
application [for a writ of habeas corpus] that the applicant . .
. is not entitled [to the writ],” the district court is not

required to serve the petition on the respondent).1

For the

reasons stated below, the Court denies the petition without
prejudice and dismisses this action.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a federal court has the authority to
entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus brought a
petitioner who is within the court’s jurisdiction at the time the
petition is filed.

See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a); Rumsfeld v. Padilla,

542 U.S. 426, 442 (2004) (“District courts are limited to
granting habeas relief ‘within their respective jurisdictions.’”
(quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a)); see also Padilla, 542 U.S. at 447
(“Whenever a § 2241 habeas petitioner seeks to challenge his
present physical custody within the United States, he should name
his warden as respondent and file the petition in the district of
confinement.”).

Unless a statute explicitly states otherwise,

“for core habeas petitions challenging present physical
confinement, jurisdiction lies in only one district: the district
of confinement.”

Padilla, 542 U.S. at 443.

1

See also Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases
Under Section 2254 (providing that, if it “plainly appears from
the face of the [habeas] petition . . . that the petitioner is
not entitled to relief in the district court,” the Court “must
dismiss the petition”). Rule 4 may be applied at the discretion
of the district court to other habeas petitions. See Rule 1(b)
of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases Under Section 2254;
see also Phelps v. Reynoso, App. No. 07-1080 (1st Cir. May 16,
2007) (district court acted within its discretion by applying
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases Under Section
2254 to § 2241 petition); Boutwell v. Keating, 399 F.3d 1203,
1211 n.2 (10th Cir. 2005) (same).
2

Here, Wetmore challenges his present physical confinement in
a federal prison located within the Eastern District of North
Carolina.

Notwithstanding that Wetmore’s commitment proceedings

were held in this District, because Wetmore is no longer confined
within the District of Massachusetts, the Court is without
jurisdiction over the present petition.
The Court, could, in its discretion, transfer Wetmore’s
petition to the Eastern District of North Carolina:

“Whenever a

civil action is filed in a court . . . and that court finds that
there is a want of jurisdiction, the court shall, if it is in the
interest of justice, transfer such action . . . . ”
§ 1631 (emphasis added).

28 U.S.C.

Here, however, it is not in the

interest of justice to transfer Wetmore’s petition.

Wetmore’s

direct appeal of his commitment as a sexually dangerous person is
pending in front of the United States Court of Appeals for the
First Circuit.
(1st Cir.).2

See United States v. Wetmore, App. No. 11-1626

Because Wetmore is in the process of challenging

the legality of his detention via direct appeal, the instant
challenge to his confinement is premature.

See United States v.

Weekes, 611 F.3d 68, 71 (1st Cir. 2010) (absent extraordinary
circumstances, district court precluded from entertaining a
habeas petition where direct appeal of the matter is pending).

2

According to the publicly available electronic docket of
this appeal, Wetmore’s appellate brief is due May 4, 2012. See
id. (Order dated Mar. 16, 2012).
3

Accordingly, the petition is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

SO ORDERED.
/s/ Patti B. Saris
PATTI B. SARIS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4