Ledher v. Thornburgh

District of Columbia

Ledher v. Thornburgh

733 F. Supp. 454, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3524, 1990 WL 41542

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia

DecidedMarch 30, 1990

DocketCiv. A. 90-0256

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 733 F. Supp. 454 (Ledher v. Thornburgh) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ledher v. Thornburgh, 733 F. Supp. 454, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3524, 1990 WL 41542 (D.D.C. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

JOHN GARRETT PENN, District Judge.

This case is before the Court on the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Carlos E. Ledher. After careful consideration of the petition, the Court concludes that the petition must be dismissed.

Ledher, proceeding pro se, is a federal prisoner serving his sentence at the United States penitentiary in Marion, Illinois. The gravamen of his petition is that he was forcibly and unlawfully abducted from the Republic of Columbia, his country of citizenship, by agents of the United States government. He has filed this action against the United States Attorney General, Richard Thornburgh.

It is well settled that “[a] district court may not entertain a habeas corpus action unless it has personal jurisdiction over the custodian of the prisoner.” Guerra v. Meese, 786 F.2d 414, 415 (D.C.Cir.1986) (citing Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court, 410 U.S. 484, 495, 93 S.Ct. 1123, 1129, 35 L.Ed.2d 443 (1973)). Title 28 U.S.C. § 2242 provides that an application for a writ of habeas corpus shall “name ... the person who has custody over” the petitioner. 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 1971). The warden of the federal penal facility is generally the prisoner’s custodian for the purposes of a habeas corpus action. See Ex parte Endo, 323 U.S. 283, 306, 65 S.Ct. 208, 220, 89 L.Ed. 243 (1944) (writ is directed to prisoner’s “jailer”). This is because *455 the custodian is the person having day-today control over the prisoner.

In this case, Ledher has not brought suit against his custodian, the warden of the United States penitentiary in Marion, Illinois. Rather, he brought this action against the Attorney General for the United States. This Circuit has specifically rejected the argument that the Attorney General of the United States is the custodian of federal prisoners. See Guerra v. Meese, 786 F.2d at 416; Sanders v. Bennett, 148 F.2d 19, 20 (D.C.Cir.1945). Thus, the appropriate respondent in this case is not the United States Attorney General. The appropriate respondent, the warden of Ledher’ s facility, is located in Marion, Illinois rather than the District of Columbia. Consequently, this action must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

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

MEMORANDUM

JOHN GARRETT PENN, District Judge.

This case is before the Court on the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Carlos E. Ledher. After careful consideration of the petition, the Court concludes that the petition must be dismissed.

Ledher, proceeding pro se, is a federal prisoner serving his sentence at the United States penitentiary in Marion, Illinois. The gravamen of his petition is that he was forcibly and unlawfully abducted from the Republic of Columbia, his country of citizenship, by agents of the United States government. He has filed this action against the United States Attorney General, Richard Thornburgh.

It is well settled that “[a] district court may not entertain a habeas corpus action unless it has personal jurisdiction over the custodian of the prisoner.” Guerra v. Meese, 786 F.2d 414, 415 (D.C.Cir.1986) (citing Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court, 410 U.S. 484, 495, 93 S.Ct. 1123, 1129, 35 L.Ed.2d 443 (1973)). Title 28 U.S.C. § 2242 provides that an application for a writ of habeas corpus shall “name ... the person who has custody over” the petitioner. 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 1971). The warden of the federal penal facility is generally the prisoner’s custodian for the purposes of a habeas corpus action. See Ex parte Endo, 323 U.S. 283, 306, 65 S.Ct. 208, 220, 89 L.Ed. 243 (1944) (writ is directed to prisoner’s “jailer”). This is because *455 the custodian is the person having day-today control over the prisoner.

In this case, Ledher has not brought suit against his custodian, the warden of the United States penitentiary in Marion, Illinois. Rather, he brought this action against the Attorney General for the United States. This Circuit has specifically rejected the argument that the Attorney General of the United States is the custodian of federal prisoners. See Guerra v. Meese, 786 F.2d at 416; Sanders v. Bennett, 148 F.2d 19, 20 (D.C.Cir.1945). Thus, the appropriate respondent in this case is not the United States Attorney General. The appropriate respondent, the warden of Ledher’ s facility, is located in Marion, Illinois rather than the District of Columbia. Consequently, this action must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

733 F. Supp. 454, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3524, 1990 WL 41542, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ledher-v-thornburgh-dcd-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack