Christy v. Hill

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: February 1, 2024
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2023-3694
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

SHAWN CHRISTY,

Petitioner,

v. Case No. 1:23-cv-03694 (TNM)

KATHY HILL,

Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on its initial review of Petitioner’s pro se Petition for Writ

of Habeas Corpus (Pet.), ECF No. 1. Petitioner Shawn Christy is currently incarcerated at the

United States Penitentiary located in Tucson, Arizona. See Notice of Change of Address, ECF

No. 3. Christy challenges the constitutionality of a state conviction and sentence entered in April

2018 by the Northampton County Court of Common Pleas, located in Easton, Pennsylvania. Pet.

at 1. This state case would of course be distinct from the federal conviction that led to his current

incarceration in Tucson. He seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, demanding

that the Court vacate his Pennsylvania conviction and remove all conditions arising from it. See

Pet. at 1, 6–8, 10, 12, 14.

Federal review of state convictions is available under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 only after the

petitioner has exhausted available state remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). According to Christy,

he has not yet exhausted his state remedies. See Pet. at 3–17. More, after such exhaustion, “an

application for a writ of habeas corpus [ ] made by a person in custody under the judgment and

sentence of a State court . . . may be filed in the district court for the district wherein such person

is in custody or in the district court for the district within which the State court was held which convicted and sentenced [the petitioner] and each of such district courts shall have concurrent

jurisdiction to entertain the application.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). Christy is neither incarcerated in

this district, nor was his conviction rendered by a local court here. So, he must file his Petition

either in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, or the U.S. District Court for the Eastern

District of Pennsylvania.

Last, to the extent that Christy may seek relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, he may not do so

here. “A district court may not entertain a habeas petition involving present physical custody

unless the respondent custodian is within its territorial jurisdiction.” Stokes v. U.S. Parole

Comm’n, 374 F.3d 1235, 1239 (D.C. Cir. 2004).

For these reasons, Christy has no recourse in this Court, and his Petition will be

dismissed without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). A separate Order will issue today.

2024.02.01 13:51:04 -05'00' Dated: February 1, 2024 TREVOR N. McFADDEN United States District Judge