Banks v. Forbes et al

Filing 5

Judge William G. Young: ORDER entered. The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED for lack of jurisdiction and this action is DISMISSED. (Copy of order mailed to plaintiff on 10/27/2017.) (PSSA, 3)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
FREDERICK BANKS,
Petitioner,
v.
KELLY FORBES, et al.,
Respondents.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO.
17-11049-WGY

ORDER
YOUNG, D.J.

October 26, 2017

For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies the
petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
Frederick Banks, a federal pretrial detainee,1 has filed a
petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in
which he claims that he is being illegally held in a United
States Penitentiary in Atlanta Georgia.2
release or a transfer to FMC Devens.

He seeks immediate

The petition has not been

served pending the Court’s initial review of the action.

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); see also Rule
4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States

1

See United States v. Banks, Crim. No. 2:15-00168 (W.D.

Pa.).
2

In subsequently-filed action, Banks represents that he is
now held at the Northeast Ohio Correctional Center. See Banks v.
Paris Acid Attack, C.A. No. 17-11906-WGY (D. Mass.)

District Courts (providing that, [i]f 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 1(b) of the Rules Governing Section
2254 Cases (Rule 4 may be applied at the discretion of the
district court to other habeas petitions).
Here, the Court lacks jurisdiction to inquire into the
validity of Banks’s confinement.

“District courts are limited to

granting habeas relief ‘within their respective jurisdictions.’”
Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 442 (2004) (quoting 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241(a)).

Unless a statute explicitly states otherwise, “for

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

Id. at 443.

Banks challenges his present physical

confinement, which was in Georgia at the time of filing and now
is in Ohio.

Because Banks was not confined within the District

of Massachusetts when he filed this action or thereafter, the
Court is without jurisdiction over the present petition.
The Court, could, in its discretion, transfer Banks’s
petition to the judicial district of his confinement: “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).
interest of justice.

28 U.S.C.

Here, however, transfer is not in the

Habeas corpus is an extraordinary remedy

that is generally available only in the absence of any other
2

remedy.

See Stack v. Boyle, 342 U.S. 1, 6 (1951).

Because Banks

can raise his objections to the fact of his confinement in his
criminal proceeding (in which he is represented by appointed
counsel), resort to habeas relief is unnecessary.
Accordingly, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is
DENIED for lack of jurisdiction and this action is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ William G. Young
WILLIAM G. YOUNG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3