Chestnut v. Mosley

Filing 14

ORDER transferring this case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. Signed by Honorable R. Bryan Harwell on 8/28/2018. (bgoo)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Raymond E. Chestnut,
Petitioner,
vs.
Bonita Mosley, Warden,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No.: 1:18-1209-RBH-SVH

ORDER

Petitioner, proceeding pro se, brought this action requesting a writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Respondent filed a motion to
dismiss on June 27, 2018. [ECF No. 8]. As Petitioner is proceeding pro se, the
court entered an order pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th
Cir. 1975), advising him of the importance of a motion and of the need for him
to file an adequate response by July 30, 2018. [ECF No. 9]. Having received
no response from Petitioner, the court on August 7, 2018, directed Petitioner
to advise by August 21, 2018, whether he wished to continue his case and to
file a response. [ECF No. 11].
On August 24, 2018, Petitioner filed a motion for leave to amend the
petition to ask for relief based on 17 different incident reports. [ECF No. 13].
The address on Petitioner’s motion indicates that he has been transferred to
the USP Big Sandy in Inez, Kentucky. Id.

District courts are authorized to grant writs of habeas corpus “within
their respective jurisdictions,” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a), and such writs “shall be
directed to the person having custody of the person detained.” 28 U.S.C. §
2243. Therefore, the proper party respondent is generally the “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.” Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542
U.S. 426, 434‒35 (2004) (citation omitted). Similarly, because “the court
issuing the writ [must] have jurisdiction over the custodian,” generally in
“habeas petitions challenging present physical confinement, jurisdiction lies
in only one district: the district of confinement.” Id. at 442‒43 (citation
omitted).
Because Petitioner is now confined in USP Big Sandy, the Eastern
District of Kentucky is the federal district where Petitioner’s current
custodian is located and where this § 2241 petition should be heard. See

United States v. Poole, 531 F.3d 263, 271 (4th Cir. 2008) (“The rule governing
jurisdiction naturally follows from the ‘immediate custodian rule’: a district
court properly exercises jurisdiction over a habeas petition whenever it has
jurisdiction over the petitioner’s custodian.”); see also Kanai v. McHugh, 638
F.3d 251, 258 (4th Cir. 2011) (concluding that “phrase ‘within their respective
jurisdictions’ in § 2241(a) identifies the proper location of the federal district
in which a habeas petition should be filed”). As Petitioner’s custodian is
2

subject to jurisdiction in the Eastern District of Kentucky, the court finds
that transfer of this petition to that district court is appropriate. See 28
U.S.C. §§ 1404, 1631 (providing for transfer of a case where such transfer
would serve the interest of justice).
For the foregoing reasons, the Court TRANSFERS this case to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge
Florence, South Carolina
August 28, 2018

3