Escobar v. Pottawattamie County Jail et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: This matter is transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. The clerk of the court is directed to take all necessary steps to transfer this matter. Civil Case Terminated. Ordered by Senior Judge Warren K. Urbom. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(TEL)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
HECTOR MELENDEZ ESCOBAR,
JAIL, and DEPARTMENT OF
IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS
The petitioner, Hector Melendez Escobar, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus on March 29, 2011. (Filing No. 1.) Mr. Melendez Escobar was thereafter
given leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Filing No. 6.) This matter is now before
the court for initial review to determine whether the claims made by Mr. Melendez
Escobar are, when liberally construed, potentially cognizable in federal court.
Upon initial review, the court finds that this court is not the proper venue for
this matter. Indeed, “[d]istrict courts are limited to granting habeas relief within their
respective jurisdictions.” Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 442 (2004) (quotation
omitted). In a habeas proceeding, “the proper Respondent is the warden of the facility
where the prisoner is being held.” Id. “The plain language of the habeas statute
confirms the general rule that for core habeas petitions challenging present physical
confinement, jurisdiction lies in only one district: the district of confinement.” Id. at
443; see also Thompson v. Missouri Bd. of Parole, 929 F.2d 396, 398 (8th Cir. 1991)
(noting that, even though the petitioner sought relief against the state of Missouri
relating to Missouri’s state detainer, “[p]roper venue lies in the District of Minnesota,
as that court has jurisdiction over [the petitioner’s] present custodian”) (quotation
Here, Mr. Melendez Escobar is currently confined in the Pottawattamie County
Jail in Council Bluffs, Iowa. Nebraska is not the district of confinement and therefore
the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska is not the proper venue
for this matter. In light of the statute of limitations and other issues, the court will not
dismiss this matter. Rather, this matter is transferred to the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Iowa for further proceedings.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
This matter is transferred to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Iowa.
The clerk of the court is directed to take all necessary steps to transfer
Dated May 31, 2011.
BY THE COURT
s/ Warren K. Urbom
United States Senior District Judge
In addition, Petitioner does not allege, nor does the record show, that the State
of Nebraska has lodged a detainer on Petitioner or has any other involvement in
Petitioner’s current confinement. Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Ky., 410
U.S. 484, 494-99 (1973) (establishing a flexible jurisdictional rule and holding that
there is “concurrent habeas corpus jurisdiction” by a federal district court in the
district of confinement and a federal district court in the state which has lodged a
detainer); see also Parette v. Lockhart, 927 F.2d 366, 366-57 (8th Cir. 1991) (applying
Braden to cases brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254). Thus, even applying this
flexible jurisdictional rule, venue in Nebraska is improper.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?