Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-2_16-cv-00084/USCOURTS-ared-2_16-cv-00084-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Leslie Lafever Miller
Plaintiff
T C Outlaw
Defendant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

LESLIE LAFEVER MILLER 

REG.#20993-075 PETITIONER 

VS. 2:16CV00084 BSM/JTR 

 

T C Outlaw, Director, 

Warden, FCI-Forrest City RESPONDENT 

RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

 The following Recommended Disposition (“Recommendation”) has been 

sent to Chief United States District Judge Brian S. Miller. You may file written 

objections to all or part of this Recommendation. If you do so, those objections 

must: (1) specifically explain the factual and/or legal basis for your objection; and 

(2) be received by the Clerk of this Court within fourteen (14) days of the entry of 

this Recommendation. The failure to timely file objections may result in waiver of 

the right to appeal questions of fact. 

I. Discussion

 Pending before the Court is a § 2241 Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus 

filed by Petitioner, Leslie Lafever Miller (“Miller”). Doc. 1. On June 3, 2016, 

Miller filed a Petition asserting habeas claims challenging a February 28, 2014 

Case 2:16-cv-00084-BSM Document 2 Filed 07/08/16 Page 1 of 3
2 

disciplinary conviction he received while incarcerated at FCI Forrest City, 

Arkansas.1

 While Miller attacks a disciplinary conviction he received at FCI Forrest 

City in 2014, he was incarcerated at FCI Talladega, Alabama, when he initiated 

this habeas action.2 Doc. 1 at 2. A petitioner proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 

must file the petition in the district of the petitioner’s custodian. See Rumsfeld v. 

Padilla, 542 U.S. 426 (2004) (the proper respondent in a habeas action is the 

petitioner’s “immediate custodian” at the time of filing); see also Hooker v. Sivley, 

187 F.3d 680, 682 (5th Cir. 1999) (“Jurisdiction over a § 2241 petition is 

determined at the time of filing of the petition.”); Harris v. Driver, 2008 WL 

454232, *2 at n.2 (N.D. W. Va. 2008) (a § 2241 petitioner attacking a disciplinary 

conviction that he received at a BOP prison in California properly filed the habeas 

action in federal court in West Virginia because he was incarcerated at a BOP 

prison in West Virginia when he filed the petition). 

 Accordingly, this Court lacks jurisdiction and recommends that this habeas 

action be transferred to the district where Miller is currently incarcerated. 

 1

 Miller alleges that his disciplinary conviction resulted in the loss of 41 days of good time credit. Habeas 

corpus is an inmate’s exclusive remedy in federal court for challenging disciplinary convictions which result in the 

loss of good-time credits and affect the length of an inmate’s confinement. See Portley-el v. Brill, 288 F.3d 1063, 

1066 (8th Cir.2002); see also Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). 2

 According to the BOP’s website “inmate locator,” Miller remains incarcerated at FCI Talladega. 

Case 2:16-cv-00084-BSM Document 2 Filed 07/08/16 Page 2 of 3
3 

II. Conclusion

 IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT this habeas action be 

TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Northern District of 

Alabama. 

 DATED this 8th day of July, 2016. 

 

 ____________________________________ 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:16-cv-00084-BSM Document 2 Filed 07/08/16 Page 3 of 3