Brown v. United States

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided January 30, 2023·No. 1:23-cv-00635·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK EDWIN BROWN, Petitioner, 23-CV-0635 (LTS) -against- TRANSFER ORDER UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Petitioner Edwin Brown, who was convicted in United States v. Brown, No. 17-CR-0710- 02 (KPF) (S.D.N.Y.), is currently on supervised release in the Southern District of Florida. He brings this pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging the calculation of his earned time credit under the First Step Act. For the following reason, this petition is transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. In order to entertain a habeas corpus petition under Section 2241, a court must have jurisdiction over the petitioner’s custodian. See Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484, 494-95 (1973) (writ of habeas corpus does not act upon the prisoner who seek relief, but upon his or her custodian). Thus, venue of a habeas petition challenging a petitioner’s physical confinement generally lies in the district of his confinement. Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 442 (2004). Petitioner is currently on supervised release in the Southern District of Florida. Therefore, in the interest of justice, this Court transfers this petition to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). CONCLUSION The Clerk of Court is directed to transfer this action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Whether Petitioner should be permitted to proceed further without payment of fees is a determination to be made by the transferee court.1 This order closes the case in this district. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose

of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). SO ORDERED. Dated: January 30, 2023 New York, New York

/s/ Laura Taylor Swain LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN Chief United States District Judge

1 Petitioner has not yet paid the $5.00 filing fee or submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Brown v. United States, (S.D.N.Y. 2023).

Brown v. United States (Brown v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Coppedge v. United States
369 U.S. 438 (Supreme Court, 1962)
Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky
410 U.S. 484 (Supreme Court, 1973)
Rumsfeld v. Padilla
542 U.S. 426 (Supreme Court, 2004)