Reed v. Washington et al

Filing 3

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE to the Western District of Michigan. Signed by District Judge Sean F. Cox. (DPer)

Case 2:20-cv-11669-SFC-RSW ECF No. 3 filed 07/09/20

PageID.23

Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ROMMEL RAY REED,
Petitioner,

Case No. 20-cv-11669
Honorable Sean F. Cox

v.
HEIDI WASHINGTON
and CONNIE HORTON,
Respondents.
___________________________________/
ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
I. Introduction
Petitioner Rommel Ray Reed filed a pro se petition for the writ of habeas
corpus and an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and
preliminary injunction on June 3, 2020. Petitioner is a 46-year-old state prisoner at
the Chippewa Correctional Facility in Kincheloe, Michigan where respondent
Connie Horton is the warden. Respondent Heidi Washington is the Director of the
Michigan Department of Corrections with an office in Lansing, Michigan.
Petitioner alleges that in 2007 he was sentenced in Jackson County Circuit
Court to a term of 25 to 40 years in prison for conspiracy to manufacture and deliver
over 1,000 grams of a controlled substance. However, he is not challenging his

Case 2:20-cv-11669-SFC-RSW ECF No. 3 filed 07/09/20

PageID.24

Page 2 of 4

conviction or sentence. Instead, he claims that, due to his age, his health problems,
and conditions at the Chippewa Correctional Facility, he is in imminent danger of
contracting the coronavirus and suffering from loss of health or even death. He seeks
release from prison on bond or on parole.
II. Discussion
Petitioner filed his habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Subsection (c)(3)
of § 2241 states that “[t]he writ of habeas corpus shall not extend to a prisoner unless
. . . [h]e is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United
States.” A preliminary question here is whether this federal district is the proper
venue for Petitioner’s case.
Section 2242 of Title 28, United States Code, “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 (2004); see also 28 U.S.C. §
2243, which provides that “[t]he writ . . . shall be directed to the person having
custody of the person detained.” Thus, “in habeas challenges to present physical
confinement –‘core challenges’ - the default rule is that the proper respondent is the
warden of the facility where the prisoner is being held, not the Attorney General or
some other remote supervisory official.” Padilla, 542 U.S. at 435. “[F]or core
habeas petitions challenging present physical confinement [under § 2241],
jurisdiction lies in only one district: the district of confinement.” Id. at 443; see also
2

Case 2:20-cv-11669-SFC-RSW ECF No. 3 filed 07/09/20

PageID.25

Page 3 of 4

28 U.S.C. § 2241(a) (stating that “[w]rits of habeas corpus may be granted by . . .
the district courts . . . within their respective jurisdictions”).
Furthermore, “[i]t is well settled that the district courts have wide discretion
to transfer an action to a different district or division, where it might have been
brought, for the convenience of the parties and witnesses, in the interests of justice,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).” Hite v. Norwegian Caribbean Lines, 551 F. Supp.
390, 394 (E.D. Mich. 1982) (citing Norwood v. Kirkpatrick, 349 U.S. 29, 32 (1955)).
“In fact, 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) does not require a motion; a district court may transfer
a case sua sponte.” Carver v. Knox Cty., Tenn., 887 F.2d 1287, 1291 (6th Cir. 1989)
(footnote omitted).
Respondent Connie Horton is the warden of the prison where Petitioner is in
custody. She performs her official duties at the Chippewa Correctional Facility in
in Chippewa County, which lies within the geographical confines of the Federal
District Court in the Western District of Michigan. See 28 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2). Thus,
the proper venue for Petitioner’s case is the Western District of Michigan.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall TRANSFER this
case to the Northern Division of the United States District Court for the Western
District of Michigan. The Court has not adjudicated Petitioner’s motion for a TRO
and preliminary injunction, nor determined whether Petitioner may proceed without

3

Case 2:20-cv-11669-SFC-RSW ECF No. 3 filed 07/09/20

PageID.26

prepaying the filing fee for this action.
Dated: July 9, 2020

s/Sean F. Cox
Sean F. Cox
U. S. District Judge

4

Page 4 of 4