Boone vs. Warden, USP Lee County

Filing 34

CLOSED TRANSFER to the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia at Roanoke, Virginia. Rather than dismiss the action, the court shall exercise its authority to transfer it to the proper federal judicial district. For the re asons explained in this Entry, the motion to dismiss or in the alternative, motion to transfer 28 is granted as the respondent seeks the transfer of this action to the District where the petitioner is currently confined. The action is transferred to the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia at Roanoke, Virginia. In light of the court's ruling on the motion to dismiss/transfer, the court will not rule on the petitioners motion to amend petition dkt 31 or his motion to supplement record dkt 33 . Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 5/2/2011. (served by US mail)(NKD) [Transferred from Indiana Southern on 5/2/2011.]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
GARY DEAN BOONE,
Petitioner,
vs.
WARDEN, FCI Allenwood,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:10-cv-145-JMS-DML

Entry Granting Motion to Transfer
Gary Boone is serving a life sentence imposed on August 13, 1998, by the United
States District Court for the District of South Carolina. Although formerly within this District,
and thereafter in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Boone and his custodian are located
in the Western District of Virginia. Boone is currently confined at the federal prison in
Jonesville, Virginia.
“[T]here is generally only one proper respondent to a given prisoner’s habeas
petition.” Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 434 (2004). That one proper respondent “is
the person with the ability to produce the prisoner’s body before the habeas court.” Id. at
435. The court lacks personal jurisdiction over Boone’s present custodian, who is not the
respondent. Boone’s former Pennsylvania custodian has appeared in the action and seeks
to have the action either dismissed or transferred. There is no respondent with custody of
the petitioner in this District and the action should not proceed here. See Blumeyer v.
Hollingsworth, 2010 WL 1488522 (S.D.Ill. April 12, 2010) (court transferred 2241 petition
when no appropriate respondent remained in the district after petitioner’s transfer)
(unpublished); Mitchell v. Bledsoe, 2009 WL 3156689 (S.D.Ill. Sept. 28, 2009)(same)
(unpublished).
Rather than dismiss the action, the court shall exercise its authority to transfer it to
the proper federal judicial district. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a), 1406. For the reasons
explained above, therefore, the motion to dismiss or in the alternative, motion to transfer
[28] is granted insofar as the respondent seeks the transfer of this action to the District
where the petitioner is currently confined.
The action is transferred to the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia at Roanoke, Virginia. In light of the court’s ruling on the motion to
dismiss/transfer, the court will not rule on the petitioner’s motion to amend petition (dkt 31)
or his motion to supplement record (dkt 33).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_______________________________

Date: 05/02/2011

Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

Distribution:
Gerald A. Coraz, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
[e-mail]
Gary Dean Boone
REG NO 94865-071
U.S. Penitentiary - Lee
Inmate Mail/Parcels
P.O. Box 305
Jonesville, VA 24263