Muhannad v. Rowodlt

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM OPINION on the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. A separate order will be entered in accordance with this memorandum opinion. Signed by Judge Lyle E. Strom on 6/19/2006. (MKR, )

Muhannad v. Rowodlt

Doc. 5

Case: 8:06-cv-00435-LES-PRSE

Document #: 5

Date Filed: 06/19/2006

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA WA'IL MANSUR MUHANNAD, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) ) JAMES P. ROWODLT, ) et al., ) ) Respondent. ) ______________________________)

8:06CV435

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 ("§ 2241 petition") (Filing No. 1), filed by the petitioner, Wa'il Mansur Muhannad, f/k/a Anthony L. Austin, previously convicted in this Court in Case No. 4:88CR102 of violating 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(a)(6), (g)(1) and 924(a)(1), (e)(1). In his § 2241 petition, the

petitioner challenges the execution of his sentence and names Chief United States Probation Officer James P. Rowoldt1 as the respondent. The petitioner is presently serving a sentence at a

federal prison facility in Marion, Illinois. A petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 may be used to challenge the execution of a federal prisoner's sentence. For

purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2241, execution of a sentence "includes such matters as the administration of parole, computation of a prisoner's sentence by prison officials, prison disciplinary

The Court notes petitioner has referred to defendant as James P. Rowodlt. The Court will refer to defendant by his proper name, James P. Rowoldt.

1

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 8:06-cv-00435-LES-PRSE

Document #: 5

Date Filed: 06/19/2006

Page 2 of 3

actions, prison transfers, type of detention and prison conditions." Jiminian v. Nash, 245 F.3d 144, 146 (2d Cir. 2001).

In this case, the petitioner objects to a prospective placement in a residential or community facility under statutes presently in effect which were not in existence when he was sentenced. contends that such placement violates ex post facto and due process principles. While it appears that the petitioner has chosen the correct statutory framework for his challenge, he has brought this action in the wrong court, and he has named the wrong person as the respondent. A petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 must He

be filed in a court within the district of confinement or, if appropriate, in a district where the federal court can serve process on the petitioner's custodian. See generally Braden v.

30th Judicial Circuit Court of Ky., 410 U.S. 484, 495-99 (1973) (§ 2241 jurisdiction lies in the district of the petitioner's actual physical confinement and also in the district(s) where the federal court can serve process on the petitioner's custodian). In addition, the appropriate respondent is the petitioner's custodian, i.e., the warden of his prison facility or possibly the Bureau of Prisons, not a United States probation officer in

-2-

Case: 8:06-cv-00435-LES-PRSE

Document #: 5

Date Filed: 06/19/2006

Page 3 of 3

the District of Nebraska.

A separate order will be entered in

accordance with this memorandum opinion. DATED this 19th day of June, 2006. BY THE COURT: /s/ Lyle E. Strom ______________________________ LYLE E. STROM, Senior Judge United States District Court

-3-