Winders v. United States

• Court: District Court, E.D. Arkansas
• Decided: December 23, 2024
• Docket: 2:24-cv-00226
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 JL 2 WO 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Michael Justin Winders, No. CV-24-03052-PHX-JAT (ESW) 10 Petitioner, 11 v. ORDER 12 United States of America, 13 Respondent.

14 15 On November 4, 2024, Petitioner Michael Justin Winders, who was then confined 16 in the Federal Correctional Institution-Phoenix, filed a pro se Petition Under 28 U.S.C. 17 § 2241 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal Custody (Doc. 1). On December 18 9, 2024, Petitioner filed a Notice of Change of Address indicating he is now in custody in 19 the Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) in Forrest City, Arkansas, and on December 12, 20 2024, he paid the filing fee. 21 In the Petition, Petitioner names the United States as the Respondent and challenges 22 the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ calculation of his sentence with respect to credit for time 23 served when he was in the custody of the United States before his sentencing. 24 Generally, a court’s jurisdiction over a § 2241 petition is not destroyed by a 25 prisoner’s subsequent transfer because a writ of habeas corpus operates not upon the 26 prisoner, but upon the prisoner’s custodian. See Braden v. 30th Jud. Circuit Ct. of 27 Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484, 494–495 (1973). Accordingly, jurisdiction over a § 2241 petition 28 attaches when a petitioner files a petition in his district of confinement and names his 1 custodian. See Mujahid v. Daniels, 413 F.3d 991, 994 (9th Cir. 2005). However, in this 2 case, Petitioner failed to name his custodian at FCI-Phoenix in the Petition. 3 “The federal habeas statute straightforwardly provides that the proper respondent to 4 a habeas petition is ‘the person who has custody over [the petitioner].’” Rumsfeld v. 5 Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 434 (2004) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2242); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2243 6 (“The writ, or order to show cause shall be directed to the person having custody of the 7 person detained”). “The consistent use of the definite article in reference to the custodian 8 indicates that there is generally only one proper respondent to a given prisoner’s habeas 9 petition.” Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. at 434. Here, because Petitioner named the United States as 10 Respondent, this Court never had jurisdiction over Petitioner’s custodian at FCI-Phoenix. 11 Since Petitioner has been transferred, the proper Respondent is Petitioner’s custodian at 12 FCI-Forrest City. 13 “District courts are limited to granting habeas relief ‘within their respective 14 jurisdictions.’” Id. at 442 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a)). The Supreme Court has 15 interpreted this language to require “nothing more than that the court issuing the writ have 16 jurisdiction over the custodian.” Braden, 410 U.S. at 495. Thus, jurisdiction over the 17 Petition lies in this Court only if it has jurisdiction over Petitioner’s custodian. See Padilla, 18 542 U.S. at 442. 19 This Court lacks jurisdiction over Petitioner’s custodian because Petitioner is 20 confined in Arkansas. “The plain language of the habeas statute [] confirms the general 21 rule that for core habeas petitions challenging present physical confinement, jurisdiction 22 lies in only one district: the district of confinement.” Id. at 443. Petitioner therefore must 23 bring his § 2241 Petition in Division 2 of the United States District Court for the Eastern 24 District of Arkansas. 25 In the interest of justice, the Court will transfer the Petition to Division 2 of the 26 United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404, 27 1406; Gherebi v. Bush, 374 F.3d 727, 739 (9th Cir. 2004) (“exercising jurisdiction” over 28 habeas petition to “transfer[] the proceedings to the appropriate forum”). 1 IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of Court must transfer this action to Division 2 2| of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas pursuant to 28 3} U.S.C. § 1406(a). The Clerk of Court must close this case. 4 Dated this 20th day of December, 2024. 5 6 '

James A. CO 8 Senior United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3-