Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_05-cv-00099/USCOURTS-azd-4_05-cv-00099-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Arthur D'Amario, III,, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Magdeline Jensen, Chief U.S. Probation

Officer, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-99-TUC-CKJ

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Petitioner's Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2241. As discussed below, the petition is denied.

I. Background

Petitioner concedes that the facts contained in Respondent's Motion to Dismiss are

true. See Petitioner's Opposition at 1. As relevant to this matter, effective November 12,

2004, the U.S. Probation Office for the District of Arizona accepted a request from the

District of Rhode Island for temporary, courtesy supervision of Petitioner. The courtesy

supervision was scheduled for 60 days so that Petitioner could visit his parents in Green

Valley, Arizona prior to being admitted to a community corrections center in Boston,

Massachusetts pursuant to an Order of the District Court of Rhode Island. Thereafter, the

District Court of Rhode Island granted Petitioner an extension of time to remain in the

District of Arizona. As such, Petitioner was expected to report to the community corrections

Case 4:05-cv-00099-CKJ Document 17 Filed 10/25/05 Page 1 of 3
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

1

Petitioner also claims that he is actually innocent of the federal charge of felon-inpossession of a firearm in Rhode Island. However, in the Court's previous screening Order,

Petitioner's claim for relief based on innocence was dismissed. 

- 2 -

center in Boston on March 30, 2005. As Petitioner failed to report as required, the District

Court of Rhode Island issued a warrant for his arrest and he was arrested in Arizona.

Petitioner then appeared before Magistrate Judge Edmonds, and she ordered him detained

and transported to Rhode Island for violation proceedings. Petitioner is now in the custody

of federal authorities in Rhode Island.

II. Discussion 

Petitioner alleges in his petition that the Federal Bureau of Prisons has illegally

restricted his travel to Rhode Island, that his prison sentences have been miscomputed, and

that this miscomputation of prison sentences has led to a miscomputation of his supervised

release.1

 Regardless of the merits (or lack thereof) of these allegations, this Court has no

subject matter jurisdiction over this petition as Petitioner has been transferred to Rhode

Island to serve his sentence. It is undisputed that Petitioner is now in the custody of Rhode

Island federal officials. As the habeas petition is only properly directed at Petitioner's current

custodian, and this Court does not have jurisdiction over Petitioner's custodian in Rhode

Island, this case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit

Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484, 494-495 (1973)("The writ of habeas corpus does not act

upon the prisoner who seeks relief, but upon the person who holds him in what is alleged to

be unlawful custody . . . [the] writ is . . . directed to, and served upon, not the person

confined, but his jailer."); Malone v. Calderon, 165 F.3d 1234, 1237 (9th Cir. 1999)("Federal

courts have authority to grant writs of habeas corpus within their respective jurisdictions .

. . The court issuing the writ must have personal jurisdiction over the custodian . . . Without

such jurisdiction, the court has no authority to direct the actions of the restraining authority.";

holding that a California district court did not have jurisdiction over a habeas action related

to a prisoner confined in Missouri); Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 248 (9th Cir. 1989)(true

Case 4:05-cv-00099-CKJ Document 17 Filed 10/25/05 Page 2 of 3
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

- 3 -

custodian for purposes habeas petition is the warden of the prison where the petitioner is

physically detained").

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

(1) Respondent's Motion to Dismiss is granted;

(2) This case is dismissed with prejudice;

(3) The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly and close the file in this

matter. 

DATED this 24th day of October, 2005.

Case 4:05-cv-00099-CKJ Document 17 Filed 10/25/05 Page 3 of 3