Timms v. Attorney General

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

GERALD W. TIMMS, ) ) Petitioner, ) v. ) Civil Action No. 26-2231 (UNA) ) ATTORNEY GENERAL, ) ) Respondent. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Petitioner Gerald W. Timms is considered a sexually dangerous person, and he currently is

detained pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4248 at the Federal Correctional Institution in Butner, North

Carolina. See Pet. at 1, 3. He demands his immediate release from detention so that he may begin

to serve a three-year term of supervised release. See id. at 4. As Petitioner knows, “[c]ivil

committees may file a habeas corpus petition pursuant to § 2241.” Timms v. U.S. Att’y Gen., No.

5:21-HC-2145-BO, 2022 WL 22377184, at *2 (E.D.N.C. Mar. 11, 2022), aff’d as modified, 93

F.4th 187 (4th Cir. 2024), cert. denied, 145 S. Ct. 356 (2024). But Petitioner files his petition in

the wrong federal district and against the wrong Respondent.

A habeas action is subject to “two habeas-specific procedural rules,” often referred to as

the habeas “channeling” rules. Dufur v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 34 F.4th 1090, 1096 (D.C. Cir.

2022). Under the first channeling rule, the petitioner must name his “immediate custodian,” who

is typically “the warden of the facility where the prisoner is being held.” Id. (citation and quotation

marks omitted). Under the second, the petitioner must bring his habeas petition “in ‘the district of

confinement.’” Id. (same). Here, however, Petitioner has failed to comply with both of these

requirements. Although neither requirement is jurisdictional, the D.C. Circuit has recognized that

1 this Court has discretion to dismiss actions that violate these requirements at the screening stage

under 28 U.S.C. 1915A. Id. at 1097.

When this Court decides to exercise this discretion, it will often transfer the habeas petition

to the U.S. District Court with proper venue. Here, however, the Court will decline to transfer the

case because Petitioner has on at least three prior occasions “tried unsuccessfully to convince a

court to discharge him” on grounds that mirror those that he raises here, see Timms v. U.S. Attorney

General, 93 F.4th 187, 190 (4th Cir. 2024), and, as far as the Court can discern, he fails to raise

any intervening facts that might warrant relitigating his claims. At a minimum, Petitioner

understands that the Eastern District of North Carolina is the proper court to hear his case, and

should new circumstances support a non-repetitious petition for relief, he can file in that Court.

An Order is issued separately.

RANDOLPH D. MOSS DATE: July 8, 2026 United States District Judge