Rogers v. Lemaster

W.D. Tennessee

Rogers v. Lemaster

DecidedJune 12, 2023

Docket1:23-cv-01026

StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook

Rogers v. Lemaster, (W.D. Tenn. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE EASTERN DIVISION

HRONDY TARVUS ROGERS,

Petitioner,

v. No. 1:23-cv-01026-JDB-jay WARDEN DAVID LEMASTER,

Respondent.

ORDER TRANSFERRING § 2241 CASE

The Petitioner, Hrondy Tarvus Rogers, has filed a pro se habeas corpus petition (the “Petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Docket Entry (“D.E.”) 2.) The pleading alleges that the Federal Bureau of Prisons has miscalculated his release date by failing to properly account for his prior incarceration in state custody. The Petition is before the Court for preliminary review. See 28 U.S.C. § 2243; Harper v. Thoms, No. 02–5520, 2002 WL 31388736, at *1 (6th Cir. Oct. 22, 2002). A § 2241 petition must be brought against the prisoner’s custodian in the district in which the custodian is located. Garrett v. Snyder, 41 F. App'x 756, 758 (6th Cir. 2002). Petitioner is incarcerated at Oklahoma City FTC, Oklahoma City, which is in the Western District of Oklahoma. See 28 U.S.C. § 116(c). Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1406(a), that this case is TRANSFERRED, forthwith, to the Western District of Oklahoma. The Clerk is DIRECTED to close this case without entry of judgment. The Clerk is FURTHER DIRECTED not to file any documents in this closed case. Any documents received from Petitioner should be forwarded to the transferee court or returned to Petitioner, as appropriate. IT IS SO ORDERED this 12th day of June 2023. s/ J. DANIEL BREEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE EASTERN DIVISION

HRONDY TARVUS ROGERS,

Petitioner,

v. No. 1:23-cv-01026-JDB-jay WARDEN DAVID LEMASTER,

Respondent.

ORDER TRANSFERRING § 2241 CASE

The Petitioner, Hrondy Tarvus Rogers, has filed a pro se habeas corpus petition (the “Petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Docket Entry (“D.E.”) 2.) The pleading alleges that the Federal Bureau of Prisons has miscalculated his release date by failing to properly account for his prior incarceration in state custody. The Petition is before the Court for preliminary review. See 28 U.S.C. § 2243; Harper v. Thoms, No. 02–5520, 2002 WL 31388736, at *1 (6th Cir. Oct. 22, 2002). A § 2241 petition must be brought against the prisoner’s custodian in the district in which the custodian is located. Garrett v. Snyder, 41 F. App'x 756, 758 (6th Cir. 2002). Petitioner is incarcerated at Oklahoma City FTC, Oklahoma City, which is in the Western District of Oklahoma. See 28 U.S.C. § 116(c). Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1406(a), that this case is TRANSFERRED, forthwith, to the Western District of Oklahoma. The Clerk is DIRECTED to close this case without entry of judgment. The Clerk is FURTHER DIRECTED not to file any documents in this closed case. Any documents received from Petitioner should be forwarded to the transferee court or returned to Petitioner, as appropriate. IT IS SO ORDERED this 12th day of June 2023. s/ J. DANIEL BREEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Rogers v. Lemaster, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rogers-v-lemaster-tnwd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack