Mathis v. Merlak
Filing
3
OPINION AND ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE to the Northern District of Ohio. Signed by District Judge Paul D. Borman. (DPer) [Transferred from mied on 12/9/2016.]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DAMON D.M. MATHIS,
Petitioner,
Civil No. 2:16-CV-14211
HONORABLE PAUL D. BORMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
v.
STEVEN MERLAK,
Respondent,
__________________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER TRANSFERRING THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS BROUGHT PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2241 TO THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
Damon D.M. Marthis, (“petitioner”), presently confined at the Federal Correctional
Institution in Elkton, Ohio, seeks the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2241. In his pro se application, petitioner challenges the decision at a prison disciplinary hearing
conducted by the Bureau of Prisons (B.O.P.) which resulted in the imposition of thirty days
disciplinary segregation, the forfeiture of twenty one days good conduct time, and the loss of
other privileges. In the interests of justice, the Court concludes that jurisdiction over this petition
lies in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio and will therefore order
that the petition be transferred to that district.
I. DISCUSSION
This Court lacks jurisdiction over petitioner’s habeas application because petitioner is not
incarcerated in the Eastern District of Michigan.
1
In general, jurisdiction for core habeas petitions in which a petitioner challenges his
present physical confinement lies only in the district of confinement. See Rumsfeld v. Padilla,
542 U.S. 426, 443 (2004). A district court may not entertain a habeas corpus petition unless it
has personal jurisdiction over the custodian of the prisoner. Guerra v. Meese, 786 F. 2d 414, 415
(D.C. Cir. 1986). The habeas corpus power of federal courts over federal prisoners has been
confined by Congress through 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to the district court within whose territorial
jurisdiction the custodian is located. Wright v. United States Board of Parole, 557 F. 2d 74, 77
(6th Cir. 1977). Claims which seek to challenge the execution or manner in which a federal
prisoner’s sentence is served shall therefore be filed in the court having jurisdiction over the
prisoner’s custodian pursuant to § 2241. Charles v. Chandler, 180 F. 3d 753, 756 (6th Cir.
1999); Griffin v. Herrera, 212 F. Supp. 2d 707, 709 (E.D. Mich. 2002). As a result, habeas
corpus proceedings may occur in a court of confinement that is different from the court of
conviction. See Martin v. Perez, 319 F. 3d 799, 803 (6th Cir. 2003). Therefore, the fact that
petitioner was convicted in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan 1
would not give this Court jurisdiction over his § 2241 habeas petition, because this Court does
not have jurisdiction over the warden of the federal prison where petitioner is incarcerated. See
Robinson v. Morrison, 27 F. App’x. 557 (6th Cir. 2001).
Petitioner claims that he was found guilty at a prison disciplinary hearing of violating
B.O.P. policy by not having his prison identification card on him at all times. Petitioner claims
1
Petitioner was convicted of possession with intent to distribute controlled substances, in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 841(a), and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
924(c). Petitioner is currently serving a sentence of 75 months in prison. See United States v. Mathis, No. 2:13-CV20262 (E.D. Mich.).
2
that he was wrongly convicted of this misconduct because there is video evidence that another
prisoner stole and used his prison identification card. Petitioner seeks a restoration of his good
time credits and restitution for money that he had to spend during his six month restrictions.
Petitioner’s current habeas petition involves a prison disciplinary hearing that resulted in
the loss of good time credits which can only be brought in the federal district where petitioner is
currently incarcerated. See Queen v. Nalley, 250 F. App’x. 895, 896 (10th Cir. 2007); See also
Pearson v. Wiley, 241 F. App’x. 488 (10th Cir. 2007)(federal district court in Colorado lacked
jurisdiction to consider petition filed by petitioner who was attacking execution of sentence
imposed for disciplinary infraction while he was incarcerated in Colorado but who had been
transferred to prison in Indiana and was currently confined in Indiana). Petitioner’s current
custodian is the warden of the Federal Correctional Institution in Elkton, Ohio, which is located
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631, a district court is required to transfer an action in which it
lacks jurisdiction to the appropriate federal jurisdiction “if it is in the interest of justice.” See
Roman v. Ashcroft, 340 F. 3d 314, 328 (6th Cir. 2003). Where a federal district court in which a
habeas petition was brought lacks personal jurisdiction over the respondent or venue is otherwise
inappropriate, the district court may transfer the case to the appropriate district court sua sponte.
Chatman-Bey v. Thornburgh, 864 F. 2d 804, 813-814 (D.C. Cir. 1988); Verissimo v. I.N.S., 204
F. Supp. 2d 818, 820 (D.N.J. 2002). Because this Court does not have personal jurisdiction over
petitioner’s custodian, it must transfer the case to the federal district court which has jurisdiction
over petitioner’s custodian. Ozoanya v. Reno, 968 F. Supp. 1, 8 (D.D.C. 1997).
II. ORDER
3
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the Clerk of the Court to transfer this case to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.
SO ORDERED
s/Paul D. Borman
PAUL D. BORMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: December 8, 2016
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served upon each attorney or party
of record herein by electronic means or first class U.S. mail on December 8, 2016.
s/Deborah Tofil
Case Manager
4
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?