Wilkes v. Rewerts

Filing 3

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE to the Western District of Michigan. Signed by District Judge Denise Page Hood. (DPer)

Case 2:20-cv-11737-DPH-RSW ECF No. 3 filed 07/31/20

PageID.27

Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

FREDRICK WILKES,
Petitioner,
CASE NO. 2:20-cv-11737
HONORABLE DENISE PAGE HOOD

v.
WARDEN RANDEE REWERTS
and MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondents.
______________________________/

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Petitioner Fredrick Wilkes recently filed a pro se petition for the writ of
habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Although Petitioner alleges that he is serving
a life sentence for aiding and abetting a felony-murder, he is not challenging his
conviction or sentence. Instead, he claims that his incarceration at the Carson City
Correctional Facility in Carson City, Michigan amounts to cruel and unusual
punishment because he has a substantial risk of contracting the coronavirus disease
there and becoming ill or even dying. He seeks injunctive relief in the form of house
arrest or release to a community halfway house.
A preliminary question is whether this district is the proper venue for
Petitioner’s case. He filed his habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241(c)(3) and

Case 2:20-cv-11737-DPH-RSW ECF No. 3 filed 07/31/20

PageID.28

Page 2 of 3

2241(d). 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.” Subsection (d) of the same statute permits
a habeas petitioner to file his or her petition “in the district court for the district
wherein such person is in custody or in the district court for the district within which
the State court . . . convicted and sentenced” the petitioner.
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, ¶ 2, 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
28 U.S.C. § 2241(a) (stating that “[w]rits of habeas corpus may be granted by . . .
the district courts . . . within their respective jurisdictions”).
Federal district courts, moreover “have wide discretion to transfer an action
to a different district or division, where it might have been brought, for the
2

Case 2:20-cv-11737-DPH-RSW ECF No. 3 filed 07/31/20

PageID.29

Page 3 of 3

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)). Section
2241(d) also authorizes the district court for the district where the habeas petition
was filed to exercise its discretion, and in furtherance of justice, to transfer the
petition to another district for hearing and determination.
Although Petitioner was convicted and sentenced in a state court lying within
this federal district, he is incarcerated in Carson City where respondent Randee
Rewerts is the warden, and he (Petitioner) is challenging the conditions at the Carson
City prison. Carson City is part of Montcalm County, which lies within the
geographical confines of the Federal Court in the Western District of Michigan. See
28 U.S.C. § 102(b)(1). The Court concludes that the proper venue for Petitioner’s
case is the federal court in the Western District of Michigan, because that district is
the district of confinement and the district having jurisdiction over Petitioner’s
warden. The Court ORDERS the Clerk of Court to TRANSFER this case to the
Southern Division of the United States District Court for the Western District of
Michigan. The Court has not determined whether Petitioner may proceed without
prepayment of the filing fee for this action.
s/Denise Page Hood
Chief Judge, United States District
Dated: July 31, 2020
3