Denoyer v. United States of America et al

Filing 12

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Denoyer has 30 days in which to show cause why jurisdiction is proper in this federal district court. The court will dismiss this case without prejudice and without further notice if DeNoer fails to respond to this order. The Clerk of the court is directed to set a pro se case management deadline: October 29, 2015: check for response to show cause order ***Pro Se Case Management Deadlines: ( Pro Se Case Management Deadline set for 10/29/2015:check for response to show cause order) Ordered by Chief Judge Laurie Smith Camp. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(MKR)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
DALE ERNEST DENOYER,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, U.S.
MARSHAL’S SERVICE, U.S. PAROLE
COMMISSION, and U.S. PROBATION
OFFICE,
Respondents.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

8:15CV185

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

BACKGROUND
On May 12, 2015, Petitioner Dale Ernest DeNoyer filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in a federal district court in the District of South
Dakota. The federal district court transferred the case here because, at that time, DeNoyer
was incarcerated at the Diagnostic and Evaluation Center in Lincoln, Nebraska.
At the time DeNoyer filed his petition, he was being detained in Nebraska on a
federal parole violation warrant and resulting United States Marshal detainer, which
originated in the District of South Dakota. DeNoyer has since been transferred to the
Buchanan County Jail in St. Joseph, Missouri. (See Filing No. 11, Notice of Change of
Address.)
DISCUSSION
The federal district court in the District of South Dakota transferred Denoyer’s § 2241
action to this court because it did not have jurisdiction over Denoyer’s current custodian.
See Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court, 410 U.S. 484, 494-95 (holding a court may not
issue a writ of habeas corpus unless it has jurisdiction over the petitioner’s custodian.”)

Now that Denoyer has been transferred to a county jail in St. Joseph, Missouri, this court
faces the same jurisdictional problem. To further complicate matters, DeNoyer named the
United States, the United States Marshals Service, the United States Parole Commission,
and the United States Probation Office as the respondents, but it is entirely unclear whether
he is in any of these parties’ custody. In any event, the court can discern no jurisdictional
basis for deciding Denoyer’s § 2241 petition in the District of Nebraska. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED:
1.

Denoyer has 30 days in which to show cause why jurisdiction is proper in this
federal district court. The court will dismiss this case without prejudice and
without further notice if DeNoyer fails to respond to this order.

2.

The clerk of the court is directed to set a pro se case management deadline:
October 29, 2015: check for response to show cause order.

DATED this 28th day of September, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
s/Laurie Smith Camp
Chief United States District Judge

2