MENDES v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry)Signed by Honorable William J. Nealon on 04/15/15. (ep)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
NELSON CRUZ MENDES,
Petitioner
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:15-CV-0645
(Judge Nealon)

MEMORANDUM
On April 2, 2015, Petitioner, Nelson Cruz Mendes, an inmate currently
incarcerated at the Correctional Institution at Moshannon Valley, Philipsburg,
Pennsylvania (“CI-Moshannon Valley”), filed the above-captioned action, seeking
“immediate deportation pursuant to I.N.S. 242 (h) as amended in 8 U.S.C. § 1252
(h)(2)(A).” (Doc. 1). For relief, Petitioner seeks to be deported without having to
complete the remainder of his sentence. (Id. at p. 1). Furthermore, Petitioner
states that he is “ready and willing to waive his rights for deportation hearings
before the completion of his sentence of imprisonment.” (Id.). Consequently,
Petitioner’s motion will be construed as seeking habeas corpus relief under 28
U.S.C. § 2241.1 See Bratini v. United States, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44175, *1

1.

“Habeas corpus review under § 2241 ‘allows a federal prisoner to challenge
the “execution” of his sentence.’ Woodall v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 432
F. 3d 235, 241 (3d Cir. 2005). Review is available ‘where the deprivation
of rights is such that it necessarily impacts the fact or length of detention.’
Leamer v. Fauver, 288 F.3d 532, 540 (3d Cir. 2002).” Bratini v. United

n.1 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 3, 2015) (Brann, J.) (construing petitioner’s action requesting
to be immediately deported without having to complete the remainder of his
federal sentence as a section 2241 habeas petition). For the reasons set forth
below, Petitioner’s action will be transferred to the United States District Court for
the Western District of Pennsylvania.
DISCUSSION
Habeas corpus petitions pursuant to section 2241 “may only be sought in the
district court having jurisdiction over a petitioner’s custodian.”2 Bratini, 2015
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44175, *2 (citing Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 426, 442 (2004); Braden
v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court, 410 U.S. 484, 494-95 (1973)). Although CIMoshannon Valley’s mailing address is in Philipsburg, Pennsylvania, which is
located in Centre County and “within the confines of the Middle District of
Pennsylvania,” CI-Moshannon Valley “is actually located in Decatur Township,
Clearfield County, Pennsylvania, which is within the jurisdiction of the United

States, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44175, *1 n.1 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 3, 2015)
(Brann, J.).
2.

Here, the only named Respondent is the United States of America. (Doc. 1,
p. 1). However, “[t]he only properly named Respondent in a federal habeas
corpus action is Petitioner’s custodial official, in this case the [CIMoshannon Valley] Warden.” Bratini, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44175, *1-2
n.2 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2242).
2

States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.” Bratini, 2015 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 44175, *2 (citing Tsoukalas v. United States, 215 F. App’x 152 (3d
Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (jurisdiction over a section 2241 petition filed by a CIMoshannon Valley inmate rests within the United States District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania)). Therefore, “[a]s recognized in Tsoukalas, this
Court lacks jurisdiction over the Warden of [CI-Moshannon Valley].” Id. at *3.
“A court may transfer any civil action for the convenience of the parties or
witnesses, or in the interest of justice, to any district where the action might have
been brought.” Id. (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)). As a result, this action will be
transferred to the United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania pursuant to section 1404(a). A separate Order will be issued.

Dated: April 15, 2015

/s/ William J. Nealon
United States District Judge

3