Waylein v. Mass. Treatment Center

Filing 8

Judge Richard G. Stearns: ORDER DISMISSING PETITION without prejudice entered. (PSSA, 5)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 21-cv-11788-RGS
STEVEN WAYLEIN
v.
MASSACHUSETTS TREATMENT CENTER
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION
November 19, 2021

STEARNS, D.J.

Pro se petitioner Steven Waylein’s (“Waylein”) 28 U.S.C. §2241
Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (Dkt. No. 1) is DENIED and the action
is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing
Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, as applicable to a
28 U.S.C. §2241 petition under Rule 1(b), because “it plainly appears from
the petition…that the petitioner is not entitled to relief” where the named
respondent, the Massachusetts Treatment Center is not a proper
respondent and the court is without jurisdiction. The Clerk is directed to
enter a separate order of dismissal.

“The federal habeas statute provides that the appropriate respondent
to a habeas petition is ‘the person who has custody over’ the petitioner.”
Gonzalez v. Grondolsky, 152 F. Supp. 3d 39, 43 (D. Mass. 2016) (emphasis
added) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2242); Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 427
(2004) (“The federal habeas statute straightforwardly provides that the
proper respondent is ‘the person’ having custody over the petitioner.”)
The named respondent, the Massachusetts Treatment Center is not a
“person” pursuant to Section 2242. Waylein has not named the proper
respondent, and on this basis alone, “the petition may be dismissed without
prejudice to its refiling with the correct respondent.” McPherson v. Holder,
14-CV-30207-MGM, 2015 WL 12861171, at *2 (D. Mass. Mar. 4, 2015); see
Crites v. Madison County Jail, 18-CV-611-DRH, 2018 WL 1832919, at *2
(S.D. Ill. Apr. 17, 2018) (“Jail is not a proper respondent in a habeas action
generally.”). While the court typically might allow amendment of the
petition to substitute the proper respondent, it declines to do so here
because, among other apparent defects, it appears Waylein may not have
exhausted his administrative remedies. See Hunt v. Dennehy, CIV A. 0610062-DPW, 2006 WL 1716769, at *1 (D. Mass. June 19, 2006) (dismissing
petition of state civil detainee for failure to exhaust state remedies).

2

The Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (Dkt. No. 2) is DENIED as
MOOT.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2253 (c)(2) a certificate of appealability is
hereby DENIED where there is no substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Richard G. Stearns__________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3