Williams v. Wetzel et al

Filing 4

ORDER GRANTING application to proceed IFP 3 , DISMISSING petition for writ of habeas corpus 1 for lack of jurisdicition, noting dismissal w/out prejudice to ptnr's right to file petition in district of confinement..., & directing Clrk of Ct to CLOSE case. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Honorable Christopher C. Conner on 01/25/12. (ki)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ANTHONY WILLIAMS,
Petitioner
v.
JOHN E. WETZEL, et al.,
Respondents

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:12-CV-0112
(Judge Conner)

ORDER
AND NOW, this 25th day of January, 2012, upon consideration of the petition
for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1), and the application
to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 3) filed by petitioner Anthony Williams, who is
presently incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution at Mercer,
Pennsylvania, which is located in the Western District of Pennsylvania, and it
appearing that “[t]he federal habeas statute straightforwardly provides that the
proper respondent to a habeas petition is ‘the person who has custody over [the
petitioner][,]’ 28 U.S.C. § 2242; see also § 2243 (‘The writ, or order to show cause
shall be directed to the person having custody of the person detained’),” and that
“these provisions contemplate a proceeding against some person who has the
immediate custody of the party detained, with the power to produce the body of
such party before the court or judge, that he may be liberated if no sufficient reason
is shown to the contrary,” Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 434-435 (2004)
(citations omitted), and that a habeas petitioner challenging his present physical
custody within the United States should name his warden as a respondent and file

the petition in the district of confinement, see R. GOVERNING § 2254 CASES R.2(a)1,
and it further appearing that petitioner is incarcerated in the Western District of
Pennsylvania and that this court therefore lacks jurisdiction over the petition, it is
hereby ORDERED that:
1.

The application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 3) is GRANTED.

2.

The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED for lack
of jurisdiction.

3.

The dismissal is without prejudice to petitioner’s right to file the
petition in the district of confinement. See Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki,
779 F.2d 906 (3d Cir. 1985).

4.

The Clerk of Court is further directed to CLOSE this case.

S/ Christopher C. Conner
CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER
United States District Judge

Although petitioner was convicted in 2009, in the Court of Common Pleas of
Lehigh County, which is within this district (Doc. 1, at 2, ¶ 1), he is not challenging
the lawfulness of that conviction or the sentence imposed by the state court.
Instead, he is challenging the calculation of his sentence by the Pennsylvania
Department of Corrections. (Doc. 1, at 3, ¶¶ 10-20.)
1