Salters v. Holzapfel

• Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
• Decided: May 19, 2023
• Docket: 8:23-cv-01083
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

ELDRED SALTERS,

Petitioner,

v. Case No. 8:23-cv-1083-WFJ-JSS

WILLIAM HOLZAPFEL,

Respondent. /

ORDER

Eldred Salters, a federal prisoner, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1). Upon review, it is apparent that the petition was improperly filed in this district. Unlike other forms of habeas relief, a § 2241 petition “may be brought only in the district court for the district in which the inmate is incarcerated.” Fernandez v. United States, 941 F.2d 1488, 1495 (11th Cir. 1991) (emphasis added); see also Garcia v. Warden, 470 F. App’x 735, 736 (11th Cir. 2012) (“[J]urisdiction for § 2241 petitions lies only in the district of confinement.”); United States v. Kinsey, 393 F. App’x 663, 664 (11th Cir. 2010) (“Unlike § 2255 motions, motions made pursuant to § 2241 must be brought only in the district court for the district in which the inmate is incarcerated.”). Mr. Salters is not incarcerated in the Middle District of Florida; he is incarcerated at FCI Butner Low, which is located in the Eastern District of North Carolina. (Doc. 1 at 1). Accordingly, this Court lacks jurisdiction over Mr. Salters’s petition. See Padgett v. Warden, USP Atlanta, 745 F. App’x 859, 862 (11th Cir. 2018) (“[J]urisdiction over a § 2241 habeas petition challenging present confinement lies in only one district: the district of confinement.”). Because jurisdiction is not proper in this district, the Clerk is directed to TRANSFER this action to the Eastern District of North Carolina and to CLOSE this case. See 28 U.S.C. § 1631 (permitting district court to transfer action to cure “a want of jurisdiction” where such transfer “is in the interest of justice”). DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on May 19, 2023.

WILLIAM F. ca UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-