Martin v. Ochonma

• Court: District Court, W.D. Texas
• Decided: May 9, 2025
• Docket: 5:25-cv-00463
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

STACEY BERNARD MARTIN, BJM, § MINOR CHILD; § Plaintiff § SA-25-CV-00463-XR § -vs- § § TONJA OCHONMA, CHARLES § OCHONMA, § Defendants

ORDER On this date the Court considered the status of this case. Petitioner Martin filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1 at 9–17. On May 7, 2025, Martin filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss the petition with the Court’s permission to refile at a later date. ECF No. 6. Upon careful consideration, the Court issues the following order. BACKGROUND Pro Se Petitioner Stacey Martin seeks relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for what appears to be a child custody dispute and allegations that state courts have refused to issue orders for the return of his minor child. ECF No. 1 at 9–17. In his petition, Martin asks this Court to “have the US Marshals Services [] apprehend his son from the Respondents Tonja and Charles Ochonma and get him somewhere safe . . . .” Id. at 16. DISCUSSION I. Analysis Subject Matter Jurisdiction This Court “ha[s] a continuing obligation to examine the basis for [its] jurisdiction. MCG, Inc. v. Great W. Energy Corp., 896 F.2d 170, 173 (5th Cir. 1990). Federal courts have an affirmative duty to examine sua sponte the basis for subject matter jurisdiction. Union Planters Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Salih, 369 F.3d 457, 460 (5th Cir. 2004). “If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” FED. R. CIV. P. 12(h)(3). Martin’s petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is insufficient to confer federal jurisdiction.

Federal courts may grant habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 only if the petitioner is “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c). “The term ‘custody’ refers to individuals who, as a result of a criminal conviction, are subject to ‘substantial restraints not shared by the public generally.’” Stewart v. Downey, No. 14- 2901 CW, 2013 WL 5423795, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 27, 2013), aff’d (Mar. 12, 204) (citing Lehman v. Lycoming Cnty Children’s Servs. Agency, 458 U.S. 502, 510 (1982)). “Custody is a necessary pre-requisite to habeas jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.” Romo-Briones v. Ridge, No. 3:04- cv-524-M, 2004 WL 2645553, at *5 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 18, 2004), R & R adopted, 2004 WL 2988541 (Dec. 22, 2004). Martin, as the petitioner, has the burden of showing that this Court has jurisdiction over

this matter. See Howery v. Allstate Ins. Co., 243 F.3d 912, 916 (5th Cir. 2001). Here, at the time of the filing, Martin resided in San Antonio, Texas. ECF No. 1 at 10. Martin does not allege that he was ever imprisoned or in custody. Thus, as Martin is not in custody for purposes of § 2241, the petition must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. CONCLUSION The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Martin’s motion to voluntarily dismiss the petition for writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 6). The motion to voluntarily dismiss the petition is GRANTED. Martin’s request to refile the petition at a later date is DENIED. For the reasons explained above, this Court lacks jurisdiction in this matter and any attempts to amend and refile the petition are futile.' IT IS ORDERED that Martin’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (ECF No. 1) 1s DISMISSED with prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Martin’s Motion to Transfer Habeas Writ (ECF No. 2) 1s DENIED as MOOT. The Clerk is DIRECTED to CLOSE this case. The Clerk is DIRECTED to mail a copy of this Order to Petitioner at the following address: Stacey Bernard Martin 119 Dobbs San Antonio, Texas 78237

It is so ORDERED. SIGNED this 9th day of May 2025.

XAVIER RODRIGUEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

' Ordinarily, “a pro se litigant should be offered an opportunity to amend his complaint before it is dismissed,” Brewster v. Dretke, 587 F.3d 764, 767-68 (Sth Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). However, “[a] district court acts within its discretion when dismissing a motion to amend that is frivolous or futile.” Martin’s Herend Imports, Inc. v. Diamond & Gem Trading United States of Am. Co., 195 F.3d 765, 771 (Sth Cir. 1999) (footnote omitted).