Smith-Bey v. Jackson et al

Filing 4

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

Case 4:20-cv-12965-MFL-DRG ECF No. 4, PageID.41 Filed 12/01/20 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ROBERT A. SMITH-BEY,
Petitioner,
Case No. 20-cv-12965
v.
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman
SHANE JACKSON and
HEIDI WASHINGTON,
Respondents.
__________________________________________________________________/
ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Petitioner Robert A. Smith-Bey is a state prisoner in the custody of the
Michigan Department of Corrections. On October 28, 2020, Smith-Bey filed a pro
se petition for a writ of habeas corpus in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241
(see Pet., ECF No. 1.) Smith-Bey has also filed an emergency motion for a
temporary restraining order (see Emergency Mot., ECF No. 2) and a motion for
immediate consideration (see Mot. for Immediate Consideration, ECF No. 3).
Smith-Bey alleges in his pleading and motions that, due to the confluence of
his health conditions (hypertension, high cholesterol, obesity, and asthma) the
ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, his congregant living conditions in prison, and
inadequate measures taken by the Michigan Department of Corrections, he is at risk
of contracting COVID-19 and losing his health or life. (See Pet., ECF No. 1,

Case 4:20-cv-12965-MFL-DRG ECF No. 4, PageID.42 Filed 12/01/20 Page 2 of 4

PageID.3; Emergency Mot., ECF No. 2, PageID.23-24; Mot. for Immediate
Consideration, ECF No. 3, PageID.36.) He seeks temporary and immediate release
to his mother’s home in West Bloomfield, Michigan on his own recognizance. (See
Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.9; Emergency Mot., ECF No. 2, PageID.26, 29.)
A preliminary question that this Court must answer is whether this district is
the most appropriate venue for Smith-Bey’s case. The Court concludes that it is not.
As noted above, Smith filed his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Subsection
(d) of Section 2241 provides that “[w]here an application for a writ of habeas corpus
is made by a person in custody under the judgment and sentence of a State court of
a State which contains two or more Federal judicial districts, the application may be
filed 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 was held which convicted
and sentenced him and each of such district courts shall have concurrent jurisdiction
to entertain the application.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). That subsection then provides
that “[t]he district court for the district wherein such an application is filed in the
exercise of its discretion and in furtherance of justice may transfer the application to
the other district court for hearing and determination.” Id.
Here, Smith-Bey was convicted and sentenced in the Wayne County Circuit
Court. (See Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.1.) The Wayne County Circuit Court is located
in this district. And Smith-Bey is currently in custody at the Earnest C. Brooks
2

Case 4:20-cv-12965-MFL-DRG ECF No. 4, PageID.43 Filed 12/01/20 Page 3 of 4

Correctional Institution in Muskegon Heights, Michigan. (See Dkt.)

That

correctional institution is located in the Western District. Thus, both judicial districts
have “concurrent jurisdiction” over Smith-Bey’s petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d).
The Court concludes that the proper exercise of its discretion under Section
2241(d) is to transfer this action to the United States District Court for the Western
District of Michigan. Smith-Bey is incarcerated in that judicial district. And he is
challenging his conditions of confinement at a facility in that district. In addition,
the proper Respondent to this action – “the warden of the facility where [Smith-Bey]
is being held” Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 435 (2004) – is also located in the
Western District. Thus, the most appropriate venue for Smith-Bey’s petition is the
United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan. Other Judges in
this district have reached the same conclusion in similar cases seeking habeas relief
under Section 2241 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. See Wilkes v. Rewerts, No. 20cv-11737 (E.D. Mich. July 31, 2020) (Hood, Chief Judge) (transferring habeas
action brought under Section 2241 to the Western District of Michigan); Reed v.
Washington, et al., No. 20-cv-11669 (E.D. Mich. July 9, 2020) (Cox, District Judge)
(same); Whitley v. Horton, No. 20-cv-11533 (E.D. Mich. July 21, 2020) (Murphy,
District Judge) (same); Sosby v. Brown , No. 20-cv-11343 (E.D, Mich. June 10, 2020
(Lawson, District Judge) (same).

3

Case 4:20-cv-12965-MFL-DRG ECF No. 4, PageID.44 Filed 12/01/20 Page 4 of 4

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall TRANSFER
this case to the Southern Division of the United States District Court for the Western
District of Michigan. The Court has not adjudicated Smith-Bey’s motion for a
temporary restraining order (ECF No. 2) or his motion for immediate consideration
of his request for injunctive relief (ECF No. 3).
s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: December 1, 2020
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties and/or counsel of record on December 1, 2020, by electronic means and/or
ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Monda
Case Manager
[phone] 

4