Johnson v. Michigan, State of et al

Filing 6

OPINION AND ORDER Summarily Dismissing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Signed by District Judge David M. Lawson. (SPin)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
STEVEN JOHNSON,
Petitioner,

Case Number 15-11605
Honorable David M. Lawson

v.
STATE OF MICHIGAN and UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondents.
_________________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
Petitioner Steven Johnson, presently confined at the United States Penitentiary Atwater in
Atwater, California, has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. This is
the petitioner’s third petition filed in this district. On April 21, 2015, Judge Borman summarily
dismissed his petition for lack of jurisdiction because the petitioner was incarcerated in California.
See Johnson v. Warden, No. 15-10889 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 21, 2015). Judge Michelson summarily
dismissed his second petition because it was identical to his earlier petition. See Johnson v. United
States of America, No. 15-11280 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 15, 2015). It is not clear from the face of the
petitioner’s present petition the basis for his challenge to his judgment, the judgment he is
challenging, or whether he is challenging the same judgment as his prior two petitions.
Nevertheless, the Court must summarily dismiss the petition because the Court lacks jurisdiction.
Upon receipt of a habeas petition, a federal court must “promptly examine [the] petition to
determine ‘if it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the
petitioner is not entitled to relief.’” Crump v. Lafler, 657 F.3d 393, 396 n.2 (6th Cir. 2011) (quoting
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts). “Federal

courts are authorized to dismiss summarily any habeas petition that appears legally insufficient on
its face . . . .” McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994); see also Martin v. Overton, 391 F.3d
710, 714 (6th Cir. 2004) (stating that Rule 4 allows the summary dismissal of a petition if it plainly
appears that the petitioner is not entitled to relief).
The petitioner’s pleading is legally insufficient on its face because the Court does not have
jurisdiction over the respondent. “[T]he proper respondent to a habeas petition is ‘the person who
has custody over [the petitioner],’” that is, “the warden of the facility where the prisoner is being
held, not the Attorney General or some other remote supervisory official.” Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542
U.S. 426, 434-35 (2004). Thus, “for core habeas petitions challenging present physical confinement,
jurisdiction lies in only one district: the district of confinement.” Id. at 443; see also 28 U.S.C. §
2241(a) (stating that “[w]rits of habeas corpus may be granted by . . . the district courts . . . within
their respective jurisdictions”). Because the petitioner is incarcerated in California, the petitioner
does not have jurisdiction over the respondent. The Court therefore will summarily dismiss the
petitioner’s habeas petition without prejudice.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the petitioner’s petition for habeas corpus is
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
s/David M. Lawson
DAVID M. LAWSON
United States District Judge
Dated: August 5, 2015

-2-

PROOF OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served
upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first
class U.S. mail on August 5, 2015.
s/Susan Pinkowski
SUSAN PINKOWSKI

-3-