SOLIZ v. WARDEN

• Court: District Court, D. New Jersey
• Decided: June 5, 2023
• Docket: 1:23-cv-03100
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

MILLER PALERMO SOLIZ,

Petitioner,

v. Case No. 8:23-cv-1236-WFJ-SPF

WARDEN, FORT DIX,

Respondent. /

ORDER

Miller Palmero Soliz, 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. Palermo Soliz is not incarcerated in the Middle District of Florida; he is incarcerated at FCI Fort Dix, which is located in the District of New Jersey. (Doc. 1 at 1). Accordingly, this Court lacks jurisdiction over Mr. Palermo Soliz’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 District of New Jersey 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 June 5, 2023.

WILLIAM F. ca UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-