Moore v. U.S.A.

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Ordered that this case is transferred back to the USDC for the Eastern District of New York. The Clerk is directed to terminate this case and mail a copy of this order to Harry C. Batchelder. Signed by Chief Judge John Preston Bailey on 5/25/11. (jss)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
CHARLES MOORE,
Petitioner,
v.

Civil Action No. 2:11cv41
(Judge Bailey)

U.S.A.,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On May 9, 2011, Harry C. Batchelder, Jr., Esq., sent a letter to the chambers of the
Honorable Edward R. Korman, Senior Judge for the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York. In the letter, Mr. Batchelder expresses concern regarding
medical care, or lack thereof, for his client, Charles Moore. Judge Korman construed the
letter as a petition for writ of habeas corpus and transferred it to this Court apparently under
the mistaken opinion that Mr. Moore was confined in F.C.I. Gilmer, which is located in
Glenville, West Virginia. However, a search of the Bureau of Prisons website establishes
that Mr. Moore is currently confined in the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) Brooklyn,
New York, which is within the jurisdiction of the Eastern District of New York.
A writ of habeas corpus is directed to the person having custody of the person
detained. See 28 U.S.C. §2243. Therefore, a “writ of habeas corpus does not act upon
the prisoner who seeks habeas relief, but upon the person who holds him in . . . custody.”
Braden v. 30th Judicial Cir. Ct. of Ky., 410 U.S. 484, 494 (1973). Thus, the proper
respondent in a habeas action is the custodian of the prisoner. Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542
U.S. 426, 434, 435 (2004) (the writ of habeas corpus acts upon the person with the ability
to produce the prisoner’s body before the habeas court, therefore, the only proper

respondent is the petitioner’s custodian). Consequently, a court cannot entertain a habeas
corpus petition unless it has jurisdiction over the petitioner’s custodian. Billiteri v. United
States Bd. of Parole, 541 F.2d 938, 948 (1976).
In this case, although the petitioner may have been designated to FCI Gilmer, he
has not yet been transferred to that facility and remains incarcerated at MDC Brooklyn.
Because that facility is within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York, jurisdiction lies with that court.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that this matter be TRANSFERRED back to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York for all further proceedings. In
transferring this case, the undersigned makes no determination regarding the merits of the
petition.1 The Clerk is directed to terminate the instant case from the Court’s active docket
and mail a copy of this Order to Harry C. Batchelder, Jr., Twenty-Eighth Floor, 40 Wall
Street, New York, NY 10005-1313.
DATED: May 25, 2011.

f a
ju
in
t o

U p o n r e vie w o f t
c t, it w a s i n t e n d e d t o
ri s d i c ti o n w o u l d s till n
c a r c e r a t e d in t his S t a t
h i s m e d i c a l c o n d iti o n
1

h e l e tt e r, it
i n iti a t e a
o t b e p r o p
e , a n d a n y
w o u l d li e e

a p p e a r s t o
c i v il a c ti o n
e r in t his C
clai m s h e
ls e w h e r e .
2

t hi
a t
o u
m a

s C o u rt
a ll. H
rt b e c a
y h a v e

t h a t it
o w e v e
u s e t h
r e g a r d

r a
r,
e
in

is
if
p
g

e s a
it i s
e titi o
d e li b

c l a i m if, i n

Ba iv e n s
a c ti o n ,
Bh iv e n y s e t t o b e
n e r a s
e r a t e i n d iff e r e n c e