Redmond v. Samuels

District of Columbia

Redmond v. Samuels

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia

DecidedFebruary 5, 2015

DocketCivil Action No. 2013-1781

StatusPublished

This text of Redmond v. Samuels (Redmond v. Samuels) 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

Redmond v. Samuels, (D.D.C. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

JESSE R. REDMOND, JR., Petitioner,

v. Civil Action No. 13-01781 (TFH)

CHARLES E. SAMUELS, JR.,

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pending before the Court are a (1) Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. 2241 [ECF No. l] and (2) Motion for Clariﬁcation on Pending Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pending Since January 07, 2013 Before the Court [ECF No. 4]. The petitioner contends that he was deprived of due process protections during disciplinary proceedings that took place at the U.S. Penitentiary-Lewisburg and that he was unlawfully transferred to a new prison as a result. Mem. of P. & A. In Support of Pet. for Writ of Habeas Corpus 2—5. The petitioner’s petition reﬂects that he is currently incarcerated at the US. Penitentiary-McCreary, which is located in Pine Knot, Kentucky. Pet. 1. Because a petition for a writ of habeas corpus that was ﬁled pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 must be ﬁled in the-district in which the petitioner is conﬁned, see Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 US. 426, 443 (2004) (stating that “for core habeas petitions challenging present physical conﬁnement, jurisdiction lies in only one district: the district of conﬁnement”), this Court lacks jurisdiction and will transfer the petition to the United

States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, which appears to have jurisdiction.

See Chairman—Bey v. T homburgh, 864 F.2d 804, 814 (DC. Cir. 1988) (noting that “it would not be inappropriate” to transfer a habeas case “sua sponte to the jurisdiction of confinement”). In

light of this disposition, the Court will deny as moot the petitioner’s Motion for Clariﬁcation on Pending Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pending Since January 07, 2013. An appropriate

order will accompany this opinion.

Thomas F. Hoga ' Senior United States Dis ict J ge

February 2 ,2015

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

JESSE R. REDMOND, JR., Petitioner,

v. Civil Action No. 13-01781 (TFH)

CHARLES E. SAMUELS, JR.,

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pending before the Court are a (1) Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. 2241 [ECF No. l] and (2) Motion for Clariﬁcation on Pending Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pending Since January 07, 2013 Before the Court [ECF No. 4]. The petitioner contends that he was deprived of due process protections during disciplinary proceedings that took place at the U.S. Penitentiary-Lewisburg and that he was unlawfully transferred to a new prison as a result. Mem. of P. & A. In Support of Pet. for Writ of Habeas Corpus 2—5. The petitioner’s petition reﬂects that he is currently incarcerated at the US. Penitentiary-McCreary, which is located in Pine Knot, Kentucky. Pet. 1. Because a petition for a writ of habeas corpus that was ﬁled pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 must be ﬁled in the-district in which the petitioner is conﬁned, see Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 US. 426, 443 (2004) (stating that “for core habeas petitions challenging present physical conﬁnement, jurisdiction lies in only one district: the district of conﬁnement”), this Court lacks jurisdiction and will transfer the petition to the United

States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, which appears to have jurisdiction.

See Chairman—Bey v. T homburgh, 864 F.2d 804, 814 (DC. Cir. 1988) (noting that “it would not be inappropriate” to transfer a habeas case “sua sponte to the jurisdiction of confinement”). In

light of this disposition, the Court will deny as moot the petitioner’s Motion for Clariﬁcation on Pending Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pending Since January 07, 2013. An appropriate

order will accompany this opinion.

Thomas F. Hoga ' Senior United States Dis ict J ge

February 2 ,2015

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Redmond v. Samuels, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/redmond-v-samuels-dcd-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack