Evans v. U.S. Marshal Service
ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 32 Report and Recommendations.. Signed by Judge James L. Graham on 10/19/2017. (ds)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
William H. Evans, Jr.,
Case No. 2:17-cv-424
U.S. Marshal Service,
This is an action for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.
§2241 brought by William H. Evans, Jr., a state inmate currently
Petitioner seeks removal of a detainer allegedly
placed against him by the U.S. Marshal’s Service in the District of
Columbia on July 11, 2008.
Petitioner alleges that this detainer
will prevent his release from state custody. Petitioner originally
filed the instant action in the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia.
On April 11, 2016, that court
concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over the petition because
petitioner is confined in Ohio, and transferred the above action to
the Southern District of Ohio.
See Docs. 17 and 18.
10, 2017, the magistrate judge filed a report and recommendation
recommending that this action be dismissed.
The magistrate judge
also issued an order denying petitioner’s motion to change venue
back to the District of Columbia.
plaintiff’s objections (Docs. 33, 34, and 35) to the magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation.
If a party objects within the
allotted time to a report and recommendation, the court “shall make
specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
Upon review, the Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or
in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
As the magistrate judge noted, petitioner challenged the
alleged detainer in a previous §2241 petition filed in this court.
See William Evans, Jr. v. Warden, Ross Correctional Inst., 2:14-cv1451.
This court concluded that the lodging of a detainer did not
jurisdiction on this court under §2241.
Doc. 8, p. 6.
Case No. 2:14-cv-1451,
In a decision filed on May 3, 2016, the Sixth
Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that petitioner was not “in
custody” based on the detainer and affirmed the dismissal of the
See William Evans, Jr. v. Warden, Ross Correctional
Inst., Case No. 15-3373 (6th Cir. May 3, 2016), Case No. 2:14-cv1451, Doc. 16.
jurisdiction to consider the instant petition on the same ground
previously upheld by the Sixth Circuit, namely, because petitioner
is not “in custody” for purposes of §2241 by reason of the
This court agrees that it does not have jurisdiction to
entertain the instant action.
However, the magistrate judge also
noted that the instant action constitutes a second or successive
habeas corpus petition, and that the Sixth Circuit has held that
the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §2244 restricting the filing of
successive petitions apply to petitions filed under §2241.
Rittenberry v. Morgan, 468 F.3d 331, 336 (6th Cir. 2006).
court concludes that the petition should be transferred to the
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals as a second or successive petition.
The court sees no basis for vacating the magistrate judge’s
order denying petitioner’s motion to transfer venue back to the
District of Columbia.
The determination of the District of
Columbia court that venue is proper in the Southern District of
Ohio is the law of the case.
In any event, this court agrees with
District of Columbia court that venue under §2241 is proper in the
Southern District of Ohio.
recommendation, and moves for a declaratory judgment that the
detainer has been withdrawn or was never valid.
court also lacks jurisdiction to enter a declaratory judgment.
Nothing in petitioner’s objections convinces this court that the
magistrate judge’s conclusions and discussion of the law applicable
to this case were erroneous.
Having reviewed the report and recommendation, the court finds
that petitioner’s objections are without merit.
For the foregoing
reasons, the court overrules petitioner’s objections and adopts the
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation (Doc. 32).
action is transferred to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals as a
second or successive petition.
Date: October 19, 2017
s/James L. Graham
James L. Graham
United States District Judge
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?