Crayton v. Adams

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT fILED FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MAR II~; 2010 Lee D. Crayton, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. ) Warden, ) ) Respondent. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Petitioner, currently confined in a Texas facility under sentence by a Texas state court,

has filed a pro se petition for habeas corpus and an application to proceed in forma pauperis. He

filed a similar petition in this court approximately six months ago, which was transferred to the

United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. See Crayton v. Quarterman,

Civil Action No. 09-1563 (UNA), Order Transferring Pro Se Case (D.D.C. Aug. 18,2009). The

transferred petition has been consolidated with other matters filed by the petitioner, and is

pending before Judge Sam A. Lindsay of the United States District Court for the Northern

District of Texas, Dallas Division. See Crayton v. Thaler, Director, Civil Action No. 08-332

(N.D. Tex.). This court cannot hear this petition because"a district court may not entertain a

habeas petition involving present physical custody unless the respondent custodian is within its

territorial jurisdiction." Stokes v. us. Parole Commission, 374 F.3d 1235, 1239 (D.C. Cir. 2004). Because the petitioner's claims are being considered by a sister court, this court will

dismiss, rather than transfer, this petition. A separate order accompanies this memorandum

OpInIOn.

ltd