Layer v. Owens

Filing 8

ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS 7 . Signed by District Judge Gershwin A. Drain. (TBan)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

SHANE D. LAYER,
Case No. 16-cv-13886
Petitioner,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
GERSHWIN A. DRAIN

v.
ANGELA M. OWENS,

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
MONA K. MAJZOUB

Respondent.
/
ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS [7]
Petitioner, Shane D. Layer, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus on
October 31, 2016. Dkt. No. 1. Petitioner is a federal prisoner confined at the
Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC), Chicago, Illinois. Dkt. No. 1, p. 1 (Pg.
ID No. 1). On June 27, 2016, U.S. District Court Judge Thomas L. Ludington
sentenced petitioner to a 16-month term of imprisonment for violating the
conditions of his supervised release. United States of America v. Layer, No.
08-cr-20018 (E.D. Mich. June 27, 2016). Petitioner’s current projected release date
is June 20, 2017. Dkt. No. 7-1, p. 2 (Pg. ID No. 27).
Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss on December 22, 2016. Dkt. No. 7. In
that motion, Respondent argues that a challenge to the execution of a sentence, i.e.,
sentence computation, must be brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the district
-1-

which has personal jurisdiction over the defendant’s custodian.
Having reviewed applicable law, the Court concludes that Respondent is
correct. “Federal prisoners may file a § 2241 petition in which they challenge the
execution or manner in which the sentence is served only in the district court
having jurisdiction over the prisoner’s custodian.” Anderson v. Warden, FCI
Texarkana, 48 F. App’x 118, 119 (6th Cir. 2002) (affirming dismissal of a petition
for being filed in the incorrect jurisdiction). See also Braden v. 30th Judicial
Circuit Court, 410 U.S. 484 (1973); Wright v. U.S. Bd. of Parole, 557 F.2d 74, 77
(6th Cir. 1977) (“The habeas corpus power of federal courts over prisoners in
federal custody has been confined by Congress through 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to those
district courts within whose territorial jurisdiction the custodian is located.”). Thus,
since Petitioner is currently confined in Chicago, Illinois, the proper district in
which to bring this claim would be the Northern District of Illinois.
Accordingly, Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss [7] is GRANTED. Because
the Court lacks jurisdiction over Petitioner’s custodian, Plaintiff’s complaint is
DISMISSED without prejudice to refiling in the proper district.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 3, 2017
/s/Gershwin A Drain
HON. GERSHWIN A. DRAIN
United States District Court Judge

-2-