Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_04-cv-00450/USCOURTS-almd-2_04-cv-00450-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

GARY WADE WILLIAMS, )

)

Petitioner, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 2:04cv450-MHT

) (WO) 

SANDRA CARTER, )

superintendent, and )

TROY KING, Attorney )

General of the State of )

Alabama, )

)

Respondents. )

OPINION AND ORDER

It is ORDERED that petitioner Gary Wade Williams's

motion for relief from judgment and motion to transfer

(Doc. Nos. 30 and 31) are denied.

Previously, this court adopted, with modifications,

the report of the magistrate judge that Williams’s habeas

petition seeking restoration of allegedly improperly

revoked good-time credits was mooted when his sentence

expired while his petition was pending. Williams v.

Carter, 450 F.Supp.2d 1297 (M.D. Ala. 2006). Williams

Case 2:04-cv-00450-MHT-SRW Document 36 Filed 12/04/06 Page 1 of 3
2

has now asked this court to dismiss and alternatively to

transfer his case to the United States District Court for

the Western District of Washington because he is

currently being held in a Washington state prison. He

brings his motions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 60(b)(6). 

Relief under Rule 60(b)(6) is available under only

“extraordinary circumstances.” Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545

U.S. 524, ___, 125 S. Ct. 2641, 2649 (2005). Such

circumstances include a finding that the district court

lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the case. Id. at

2649. This case does not present such a situation. 

Williams cites Padilla v. Rumsfeld for the general

rule that “for core habeas petitions challenging present

physical confinement, jurisdiction lies in only one

district: the district of confinement.” 542 U.S. 426,

443 (2004); but see Carballo v. LaManna, No. 8:05-3576-

GRA-BHH, 2006 WL 3230761 (D. S.C. Nov. 6, 2006) (where

the State of Florida contracted with the Federal Bureau

of Prisons in South Carolina to board a Florida inmate,

Case 2:04-cv-00450-MHT-SRW Document 36 Filed 12/04/06 Page 2 of 3
jurisdiction was proper in the State of Florida).

However, the term “jurisdiction” within the context of

this case does not refer to subject-matter jurisdiction.

Id. at 451 (O’Connor, J., concurring) (the rules

governing the proper court in which a habeas petition

should be brought “are not jurisdictional in the sense of

a limitation on subject-matter jurisdiction”). 

Additionally, the respondents have essentially waived

their objection to this court’s jurisdiction over the

case. See id. at 452 (“Because the immediate-custodian

and territorial-jurisdiction rules are like personal

jurisdiction or venue rules, objections to the filing of

petitions based on those grounds can be waived by the

government.”). This court has already ruled on

Williams’s habeas petition without any objections on

territorial jurisdiction from the respondents. As such,

Williams is not the proper party to raise this issue, and

territorial jurisdiction in this case is proper. 

DONE, this the 4th day of December, 2006.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-00450-MHT-SRW Document 36 Filed 12/04/06 Page 3 of 3