Davis #20021-039 v. United States of America

Filing 5

ORDER DISMISSING CASE without prejudice; signed by Chief Judge Paul L. Maloney (Chief Judge Paul L. Maloney, acr)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

THOMAS L. DAVIS,

)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
)
)
Respondent.
)
____________________________________)

Case No. 1:10-cv-1289
Honorable Paul L. Maloney

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

This is a habeas corpus proceeding brought by a federal prisoner, purportedly
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. According to the records of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, petitioner
is an inmate in the United States Penitentiary-Tucson, serving a federal sentence, with a release date
in the year 2017. The pro se petition allegedly challenges an “illegal state sentence,” presumably
imposed at some time in the past by the Michigan state courts. Beyond that, the two-page,
handwritten petition is completely incomprehensible. Petitioner does not identify the state sentence
under attack or allege grounds for its constitutional invalidity. For relief, petitioner seeks a writ of
habeas corpus under section 2241 and an order requiring his transfer from the Bureau of Prisons to
a place in Grand Rapids, Michigan, on house arrest.
Although the petition is brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, the court has
discretion to apply the procedures set forth in the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. See Rule
1(b), RULES GOVERNING SECTION 2254 CASES IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS. Under the
section 2254 rules, the court may summarily dismiss a petition if it plainly appears from the face of

the petition that petitioner is not entitled to relief. Petitioner is clearly entitled to no relief in this
court on his section 2241 petition.
The statute under which petitioner proceeds, 28 U.S.C. § 2241, empowers the district
courts to entertain an application for writ of habeas corpus “within their respective jurisdictions.”
The federal habeas statute goes on to provide in clear fashion that the proper respondent to a habeas
petition is the “person who has custody over [the petitioner].” 28 U.S.C. § 2242; see also § 2243
(“The writ or order to show cause shall be directed to the person having custody of the person
detained.”).

These provisions contemplate a proceeding against some person who has the

“immediate custody” of the party detained, with the power to produce the body of such person before
the court. Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 435 (2004). Hence, the proper respondent is the
warden of the facility where the prisoner is being held, id., and the only proper court is the court with
territorial jurisdiction over the custodian. Id. at 442. Consequently, this court has no jurisdiction
to entertain a section 2241 application brought by a prisoner of the Bureau of Prisons lodged in the
State of Arizona. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. at 443 (“The plain language of the habeas statute thus confirms
the general rule that for core habeas petitions challenging present physical confinement, jurisdiction
lies in only one district: the district of confinement.”); Wright v. U.S. Bd. of Parole, 557 F.2d 74, 77
(6th Cir. 1977).
Under the foregoing authorities, this is not the appropriate district court in which
petitioner may seek section 2241 relief. Accordingly:

-2-

IT IS ORDERED that the petition be and hereby is DISMISSED without prejudice.

Dated: July 29, 2011

/s/ Paul L. Maloney
Paul L. Maloney
Chief United States District Judge

-3-