Martin v. Warden, FCI Danbury

D. Connecticut

Martin v. Warden, FCI Danbury

DecidedSeptember 25, 2024

Docket3:24-cv-01600

StatusUnknown

This text of Martin v. Warden, FCI Danbury (Martin v. Warden, FCI Danbury) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Martin v. Warden, FCI Danbury, (D. Conn. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

USDC SDNY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC #: JOVANN L. MARTIN, DATE FILED:_09/25/2024 Petitioner, 24-CV-7231 (LJL) -against- TRANSFER ORDER WARDEN, FCI DANBURY, Respondent. LEWIS J. LIMAN, United States District Judge: Petitioner, who is currently incarcerated at FCI] Danbury in Connecticut, brings this pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. For the following reasons, this petition is transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. In order to entertain a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a court must have Jurisdiction over the 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, jurisdiction 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 detained at FCI Danbury, which is located in the judicial district of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. 28 U.S.C.§ 86. Therefore, in the interest of justice, this Court transfers this petition to the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). The Clerk of Court is directed to transfer this action to the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. 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: September 25, 2024 7 New York, New York we Jy Yorn — / f i LEWIS J. LIMAN United States District Judge

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

USDC SDNY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC #: JOVANN L. MARTIN, DATE FILED:_09/25/2024 Petitioner, 24-CV-7231 (LJL) -against- TRANSFER ORDER WARDEN, FCI DANBURY, Respondent. LEWIS J. LIMAN, United States District Judge: Petitioner, who is currently incarcerated at FCI] Danbury in Connecticut, brings this pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. For the following reasons, this petition is transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. In order to entertain a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a court must have Jurisdiction over the 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, jurisdiction 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 detained at FCI Danbury, which is located in the judicial district of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. 28 U.S.C.§ 86. Therefore, in the interest of justice, this Court transfers this petition to the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). The Clerk of Court is directed to transfer this action to the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. 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: September 25, 2024 7 New York, New York we Jy Yorn — / f i LEWIS J. LIMAN United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Martin v. Warden, FCI Danbury, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-v-warden-fci-danbury-ctd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack