Moon v. USA

Filing 13

ORDER: Before the Court is #12 Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241 filed by Petitioner Michael S. Moon. As this Court is not the proper District Court to adjudicate Moon's Petition, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to transfer Moon's Petition to the United States District Court for the District of South Dakota. Signed by Judge Stephen P. McGlynn on 2/6/2024. (trf) [Transferred from Illinois Southern on 2/7/2024.]

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
MICHAEL S. MOON,
Petitioner,
v.

Case No. 22-CV-01097-SPM

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,1
Respondent.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
McGLYNN, District Judge:
Petitioner Michael S. Moon, a federal inmate presently housed at Federal
Prison Camp Yankton in South Dakota, filed the instant Amended Petition for Writ
of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 12). The matter is now before
the Court for a preliminary review of the Petition pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules
Governing Section 2254 cases in the United States District Courts. Rule 1(b) gives
this Court the authority to apply these Rules to other habeas corpus cases. Id.
Moon was stopped on July 9, 2018 by the Kansas Highway Patrol and
subsequently arrested for outstanding warrants for parole violations in case numbers
2014-CR-001646, 2015-CR-001649, and 2017-CR-000317. (See Doc. 12, p. 5 (citing the
same)). His parole was revoked for cases 2014-CR-001646 and 2015-CR-001649 on
July 26, 2018 and for case 2017-CR-000317 on August 14, 2018. (Id.). He was indicted

William O’Donnell is the proper Respondent as he is the warden at Federal Prison Camp Yankton,
and as such, is Moon’s immediate custodian. See Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court, 410 U.S. 484,
495 (1973). As is discussed infra, because this case will be transferred to the District of South
Dakota, the Court’s docket need not be updated at this time.
1

Page 1 of 7

in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas on September 19, 2018.
See United States v. Moon, No. 18-CR-40086-001 (D. Kan. Oct. 13, 2021) (Doc. 1). He
was removed from state custody to federal custody on May 3, 2019 via a writ of habeas
corpus ad prosequendum and remained in federal custody. (See Doc. 12, p. 5). He
pleaded guilty on April 6, 2021 to one charge of conspiracy to distribute
methamphetamine in violate of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(a). See No. 18-CR-40086-001
(Doc. 49). While in federal custody, Moon completed service on his state sentences on
January 28, 2021 and entered exclusive federal custody on January 29, 2021. (See
Doc. 12, p. 5). He was sentenced on October 12, 2021 in the United States District
Court for the District of Kansas to a term of 140 months in prison in case 18-CR40086-001. See No. 18-CR-40086-001 (Doc. 61).
Moon filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241
in the District of Kansas on May 23, 2022. (Doc. 1). On May 24, 2022, this action was
transferred to this Court from the District of Kansas as Moon was incarcerated at
Federal Correctional Institute Greenville. (Doc. 2). On May 25, 2022, this Court
attempted to conduct preliminary review of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
(Doc. 1); however, there was insufficient information provided to do so. As such, the
Court directed the Clerk to send Moon a blank Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 with a return date of June 27, 2022 for filing as an Amended
Petition (Doc. 5).
On June 21, 2022, this Court received what was filed as an Amended Petition
for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 6). This document was not the blank § 2241 petition
provided, instead, it was virtually identical to the prior petition (Doc. 1) with the
Page 2 of 7

exception of identifying that the case was in the Southern District of Illinois and was
assigned case number 22-CV-01097-SPM. (See Docs. 1, 6). Again, this document failed
to provide any information regarding the sentence under challenge, including the
court of conviction, docket number and date of sentence, as well as any information
regarding prior challenges and/or appeals. The Court entered an Order on July 11,
2022 dismissing the Amended Petition without prejudice and dismissing the case.
(See Docs. 7, 8). Moon filed a Notice of Address Change on July 11, 2022 indicating
that he had been transferred to the Federal Transfer Center in Oklahoma City (Doc.
9); he subsequently filed a Motion for Status and Address Change on August 18, 2022
(Doc. 10) in which he notified the Court that he had been transferred to Federal
Medical Center Rochester. (Doc. 10). The Court directed the Clerk of Court to forward
the order dismissing Moon’s case without prejudice to Moon. (See Doc. 11).
The instant Amended Petition was filed on February 1, 2024. (See Doc. 12).
The mailing address of the Amended Petition indicates that Moon is now incarcerated
at Federal Prison Camp Yankton in South Dakota. (See id.). Here, however, there is
a critical issue with this case. At the time of filing of his original Petition (Doc. 1),
Petitioner Moon was incarcerated at FCI Greenville, which is located within the
Southern District of Illinois. A review of the Bureau of Prisons website shows that he
is currently incarcerated at Federal Prison Camp Yankton, which is located within
the District of South Dakota. 2 The Court previously ruled that the “[t]ransfer of
petitioner to a facility outside this jurisdiction does not divest this Court of subject

2

See Find an inmate., FED. BUREAU OF PRISONS, https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ (last visited Feb. 2, 2024) (search
using Moon’s BOP Register Number “29660-031”).

Page 3 of 7

matter jurisdiction as jurisdiction is determined at the time of filing.” (See Doc. 6, p.
1 n.2 (citing Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 441 (2004))). When Moon’s Amended
Petition was filed on June 21, 2022, however, less than a month had elapsed since
the filing of his original Petition in the District of Kansas on May 23, 2022. (See Docs.
1, 6).
In Padilla, instead of filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the District
of South Carolina in which he was imprisoned, the petitioner filed a petition in the
Southern District of New York directed at then-President George W. Bush, thenSecretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and Melanie A. Marr, the Commander of the
Consolidated Naval Brig in Charleston, South Carolina in which Padilla was held as
an “enemy combatant.” 542 U.S. at 432. The District Court and Court of Appeals both
held that the Southern District of New York could assert jurisdiction over Secretary
Rumsfeld through New York’s long-arm statute and that Rumsfeld exercised “legal
reality of control” over Padilla. Id. at 432–33 (citing Padilla ex rel. Newman v. Bush,
233 F. Supp. 2d 564 (S.D.N.Y. 2002)) (quoting Padilla ex rel. Newman v. Bush, 352
F.3d 695 (2d Cir. 2003)).
In reversing the District Court and the Second Circuit, the Supreme Court was
explicit that “[t]he consistent use of the definite article in reference to the custodian
indicates that there is generally only one proper respondent to a given prisoner’s
habeas petition.” Padilla, 542 U.S. at 434 (emphasis added). “This custodian,
moreover, is ‘the person’ with the ability to produce the prisoner’s body before the
habeas court.” Id. at 435. Moreover:
In accord with the statutory language and Wales’ immediate custodian
Page 4 of 7

rule, longstanding practice confirms that in habeas challenges to
present physical confinement—“core challenges”—the default rule is
that the proper respondent is the warden of the facility where the
prisoner is being held, not the Attorney General or some other remote
supervisory official.
Id. (citing Wales v. Whitney, 114 U.S. 564, 574 (1885); Hogan v. Hanks, 97 F.3d 189,
190 (7th Cir. 1996); Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir. 1992);
Blango v. Thornburgh, 942 F.2d 1487, 1491–92 (10th Cir. 1991) (per curiam);
Brennan v. Cunningham, 813 F.2d 1, 12 (1st Cir. 1987); Guerra v. Meese, 786 F.2d
414, 416 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (per curiam); Billiteri v. U.S. Bd. of Parole, 541 F.2d 938,
948 (2d Cir. 1976); Sanders v. Bennett, 148 F.2d 19, 20 (D.C. Cir. 1945); Jones v.
Biddle, 131 F.2d 853, 854 (8th Cir. 1942)).
The Supreme Court distinguished Ex parte Endo, 323 U.S. 283 (1944) as
standing for the proposition that “when the Government moves a habeas petitioner
after she properly files a petition naming her immediate custodian, the District Court
retains jurisdiction and may direct the writ to any respondent within its jurisdiction
who has legal authority to effectuate the prisoner’s release.” Padilla at 441 (citing
Endo). Here, however, there is an issue. Unlike in Padilla (where the first habeas
petition was filed after Padilla was transferred), Moon has been transferred at least
three times since Moon first filed his Petition in the District of Kansas while
incarcerated at Federal Correction Institution Greenville: he was transferred to
Federal Transfer Center Oklahoma City at some point after filing his first Amended
Petition on June 21, 2022 (Doc. 9); to Federal Medical Center Rochester at some point
before his August 18, 2022 Notice of Address Change (Doc. 10); and to Federal Prison
Camp Yankton at some point before filing the instant Petition (for which he did not
Page 5 of 7

file a notice of change of address or any intention to pursue this case). Unlike the
Court’s ruling on his first Amended Petition, Moon has not simply been transferred
once while his habeas petition was still pending review. (See Docs. 6, 7). Rather, a
year and a half have elapsed after his case was dismissed without prejudice and he
has been transferred at least three times since the Court’s previous ruling.
Considering Padilla, it would be nonsensical for this Court to retain habeas
jurisdiction over Moon under the current conditions. This is a “core challenge” where
Moon challenges his current confinement and, even if the Court were able to maintain
jurisdiction over this matter, there are no officials in Illinois who are responsible for
Moon’s confinement over whom the Court could exercise jurisdiction. Moreover,
unlike Endo or Padilla, at no point did Moon properly name his immediate custodian
in his petitions—they are all addressed to the United States of America as
respondent, as noted by this Court in its July 11, 2022 ruling. (See Doc. 7).
Therefore, this Court declines to dive into the murky waters of habeas
jurisdiction when a prisoner is subsequently transferred multiple times. While Moon
originally filed his threadbare habeas petitions in the District of Kansas and in the
Southern District of Illinois, respectively, he is currently incarcerated at Federal
Prison Camp Yankton. Until the instant Amended Petition was filed, he had not filed
anything in this District since August 23, 2022 and did not indicate any intent to
proceed with this matter. (See Doc. 11). In accordance with Padilla, there is only one
District where Moon can file his petition: the District of South Dakota, where the
Warden of Federal Prison Camp Yankon can “produce the body” before the cognizant
District Judge.
Page 6 of 7

DISPOSITION
Because this petition was filed in the wrong district court, this Court must
consider whether to dismiss the petition without prejudice or to transfer it to the
appropriate court. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631, if a civil action is filed in a forum
that lacks jurisdiction over the matter, “the court shall, if it is in the interest of justice,
transfer such action or appeal to any other such court . . . in which the action or appeal
could have been brought at the time it was filed . . . .” The court has considered the
record and finds the interest of justice warrants the transfer of this matter, as
petitioner’s claim is filed in good faith and merits review.
For the reasons set forth above, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to transfer
Moon’s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2241 to the United States District Court for the District of South Dakota.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:

February 6, 2024
s/ Stephen P. McGlynn
STEPHEN P. McGLYNN
U.S. District Judge

Page 7 of 7