Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00541/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00541-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DUANE ANTHONY HENRY,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 12cv541-MMA (BGS)

vs. ORDER DISMISSING PETITION

WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR LACK

OF JURISDICTION

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., UNITED STATES

ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

Petitioner is a detainee proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner is currently confined at James A. Musick Detention Facility in

Irvine, California, which is located within the Central District of California. As such, the Court

lacks jurisdiction over the person of Petitioner’s custodian and must dismiss the petition. 

Title 28 of the United States Code, section 2241(a) provides that writs of habeas corpus may

be granted by the district courts “within their respective jurisdictions.” A writ of habeas corpus

operates not upon the prisoner, but upon the prisoner’s custodian. Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit

Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484, 494-495 (1973). A petitioner filing a petition for writ of habeas

corpus under section 2241 must file the petition in the judicial district of the petitioner’s custodian. 

Brown v. United States, 610 F.2d 672, 677 (9th Cir. 1990). The warden of the penitentiary where a

prisoner is confined constitutes the custodian who must be named in the petition, and the petition

must be filed in the district of confinement. Id.; Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 446-47 (2004). 

- 1 - 12cv541

Case 3:12-cv-00541-MMA-BGS Document 4 Filed 03/26/12 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

In Rumsfeld v. Padilla, the Supreme Court clarified that the person who has custody over the

petitioner is the petitioner’s immediate custodian. “[I]n habeas challenges to present physical

confinement— ‘core challenges’—the default rule is that the proper respondent is the warden of the

facility where the prisoner is being held, not the Attorney General or some remote supervisory

official.” Id. at 435, citing Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Ky., 410 U.S. at 494-95; Wales

v. Whitney, 114 U.S. 564, 574 (1885). Simply put, “[w]henever a § 2241 habeas petitioner seeks to

challenge his present physical custody within the United States, he should name his warden as

respondent and file the petition in the district of confinement.” Padilla, 542 U.S. at 447.

As noted above, Petitioner is currently confined in Irvine, California. Under the rule

articulated in Padilla, the proper respondent for his petition is the warden of that facility, and the

only district court having jurisdiction over his petition is the United States District Court for the

Central District of California. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Petitioner’s petition without

prejudice to refiling in the Central District.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 26, 2012

Hon. Michael M. Anello

United States District Judge

- 2 - 12cv541

Case 3:12-cv-00541-MMA-BGS Document 4 Filed 03/26/12 Page 2 of 2