Lester v. Michigan Department of Corrections

Filing 4

OPINION AND ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE to the Western District of Michigan. Signed by District Judge Linda V. Parker. (DPer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
KENNETH LESTER,
Petitioner,

Case No. 2:20-CV-11474
Hon. Linda V. Parker

v.
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS,
Respondent.
___________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER TRANSFERRING THE PETITION FOR WRIT
OF HABEAS CORPUS/CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT TO THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF
MICHIGAN
Kenneth Lester, presently confined at the Chippewa Correctional Facility in
Kincheloe, Michigan, and proceeding pro se, filed this action seeking release on
bond due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Petitioner’s pleading is titled “Emergency
Application for Temporary Injunctive Relief Ordering Petitioner’s Release on
Tether Bond.” (ECF No. 1.)

Petitioner claims Fifth and Eighth Amendment

protections in support of his request but does not specify whether his plea is a petition
for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 or § 2254, or a civil rights
action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Petitioner seeks early release from his prison term based on the Michigan
Department of Correction’s inability to house inmates appropriately to permit social
distancing and prevent contagion. He cites his underlying health conditions which
increase his risk of severe illness and death. In the interests of justice, the Court
concludes that the proper venue for this action is in the Western District of Michigan
and orders that the petition be immediately transferred to that district.
I. DISCUSSION
“Writs of habeas corpus may be granted by . . . the district courts and any
circuit judge within their respective jurisdictions.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a). “The
federal habeas statute straightforwardly provides that the proper respondent to a
habeas petition is ‘the person who has custody over [the petitioner].’” Rumsfeld v.
Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 434–35 (2004) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2242); see also 28 U.S.C.
§ 2243 (“The writ, or order to show cause shall be directed to the person having
custody of the person detained.”). When a habeas petitioner challenges his or her
present physical confinement, the only proper respondent is the warden of the
facility where the petitioner is being held. See Gilmore v. Ebbert, 895 F.3d 834, 837
(6th Cir. 2018) (citing to Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. at 435).
Petitioner is currently incarcerated at the Chippewa Correctional Facility in
Kincheloe, Michigan, which is located in the Western District of Michigan. To the
extent that Petitioner seeks relief under the civil rights statute, venue is not proper in
2

this district. Venue is in the judicial district where either all defendants reside or
where the claim arose. Al-Muhaymin v. Jones, 895 F. 2d 1147, 1148 (6th Cir. 1990);
28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). For the convenience of parties and witnesses and in the
interests of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district
or division where it might have been brought. See United States v. P.J. Dick, Inc.,
79 F. Supp. 2d 803, 805-06 (E.D. Mich. 2000) (Gadola, J.); 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
And when venue is inappropriate, a court may transfer a habeas petition to the
appropriate federal district court sua sponte. See Verissimo v. I.N.S., 204 F. Supp.
2d 818, 820 (D.N.J. 2002); Schultz v. Ary, 175 F. Supp. 2d 959, 964 (W.D. Mich.
2001).
Assuming that Petitioner’s pleading is also or alternatively intended as a civil
rights action, Petitioner has failed to allege that any of the acts, events, or omissions
which form the basis of his lawsuit took place in this district. See Miles v. WTMX
Radio, 15 F. App’x. 213, 215 (6th Cir. 2001). The Court concludes that venue in
this lawsuit lies in the United States District Court for the Western District of
Michigan, where Petitioner alleges that the civil rights violations occurred.
Accordingly, the Court orders that the case be transferred to the Western
District of Michigan. “Given the significant liberty interests at stake, the timesensitivity of [Petitioner’s] claims, and the risks to [Petitioner’s] health posed by the
rapid spread of COVID-19,” the Court “directs the Clerk to effectuate the transfer
3

as soon as possible.” Barrera v. Decker, 2020 WL 1686641, at * 1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr.
7, 2020).
II. ORDER
For the reasons stated above, the Court ORDERS the Clerk of the Court to
transfer this case to the United States District Court for the Western District of
Michigan pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Linda V. Parker
LINDA V. PARKER
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: June 11, 2020
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of
record and/or pro se parties on this date, June 11, 2020, by electronic and/or U.S.
First Class mail.
s/ R. Loury
Case Manager

4