Martin v. Warden, FCI Danbury

Filing 4

TRANSFER ORDER: The Clerk of Court is directed to transfer this action to the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. This order closes the case in this District. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Lewis J. Liman on 9/25/2024) (ks) Transmission to Office of the Clerk of Court for processing.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
09/25/2024

JOVANN L. MARTIN,
Petitioner,
-against-

24-CV-7231 (LJL)
TRANSFER ORDER

WARDEN, FCI DANBURY,
Respondent.
LEWIS J. LIMAN, United States District Judge:

Petitioner, who is currently incarcerated at FCI Danbury in Connecticut, brings this pro
se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. For the following reasons, this
petition is transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut.
In order to entertain a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a court must have
jurisdiction over the custodian. See Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S.
484, 494-95 (1973) (writ of habeas corpus does not act upon the prisoner who seek relief, but
upon his or her custodian). Thus, jurisdiction of a habeas petition challenging a petitioner’s
physical confinement generally lies in the district of his confinement. Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542
U.S. 426, 442 (2004). Petitioner is currently detained at FCI Danbury, which is located in the
judicial district of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. 28 U.S.C. §
86. Therefore, in the interest of justice, this Court transfers this petition to the United States
District Court for the District of Connecticut. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).
The Clerk of Court is directed to transfer this action to the United States District Court
for the District of Connecticut. This order closes the case in this District.

The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from this order
would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose
of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).
SO ORDERED.
Dated:

September 25, 2024
New York, New York
LEWIS J. LIMAN
United States District Judge