Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00386/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00386-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bernie Ellis
Respondent
Adolfo Ramirez
Petitioner

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ADOLFO RAMIREZ, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

BERNIE ELLIS, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:06-cv-00386-OWW-TAG HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO

DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS

CORPUS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

ORDER DIRECTING THAT OBJECTIONS BE

FILED WITHIN TWENTY DAYS

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT PETITIONER’S

MOTION FOR SCHEDULING ORDER (Doc.

11)

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

On April 6, 2006, Petitioner filed the instant petition in this Court. (Doc. 1). At the time

of filing, Petitioner was incarcerated in the Taft Correctional Institution, Taft, California (“TCI”),

which is within the jurisdiction of this Court. On August 9, 2006, Petitioner filed a notice of

change of address in which he indicated that on August 2, 2006 he had been transferred to the

United States Penitentiary, Lompoc, California (“USP Lompoc”). (Doc. 10). USP Lompoc lies

within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Central District of California. 

On July 20, 2007, Petitioner filed a motion for issuance of a scheduling order. (Doc. 11). 

Writ of habeas corpus relief extends to a person in custody under the authority of the

United States. See U.S.C. § 2241. While a federal prisoner who wishes to challenge the validity

or constitutionality of his conviction must bring a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28

U.S.C. § 2255, a petitioner challenging the manner, location, or conditions of that sentence’s

Case 1:06-cv-00386-OWW -TAG Document 12 Filed 12/14/07 Page 1 of 4
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

2

execution must bring a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See, e.g.,

United States v. Giddings, 740 F.2d 770, 772 (9th Cir. 1984); Brown v. United States, 610 F.2d

672, 677 (9th Cir. 1980). A habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 must be brought in

the judicial district of the petitioner’s custodian. Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 865 (9th

Cir. 2000); Brown, 610 F.2d at 677.

In Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 124 S.Ct. 2711 (2004), the United States Supreme

Court clarified the law pertaining to which district court had jurisdiction over petitions filed

under § 2241:

The federal habeas statute straightforwardly provides that the proper respondent to a

habeas petition is “the person who has custody over [the petitioner].” 28 U.S.C. § 2242;

see also § 2243 (“The writ, or order to show cause shall be directed to the person having

custody of the person detained”). The consistent use of the definite article in reference to

the custodian indicates that there is generally only one proper respondent to a given

prisoner's habeas petition. This custodian, moreover, is “the person” with the ability to

produce the prisoner's body before the habeas court. Ibid. We summed up the plain

language of the habeas statute over 100 years ago in this way: “[T]hese provisions

contemplate a proceeding against some person who has the immediate custody of the

party detained, with the power to produce the body of such party before the court or

judge, that he may be liberated if no sufficient reason is shown to the contrary.” Wales v.

Whitney, 114 U.S. 564, 574, 5 S.Ct. 1050, 29 L.Ed. 277 (1885)(emphasis added); see also

Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Ky., 410 U.S. 484, 494-495, 93 S.Ct. 1123, 35

L.Ed.2d 443 (1973) (“The writ of habeas corpus” acts upon “the person who holds [the

detainee] in what is alleged to be unlawful custody,” citing Wales, supra, at 574, 5 S.Ct.

1050); Braden, supra, at 495, 93 S.Ct. 1123 (“ ‘[T]his writ ... is directed to ... [the] jailer,’

” quoting In re Jackson, 15 Mich. 417, 439-440 (1867)).

Id. at 434-435.

When Petitioner originally filed the instant habeas corpus petition, he was incarcerated at

Taft Correctional Institution. Because TCI is within the territory of the Eastern District of

California, Fresno Division, this Court had jurisdiction over the action. However, Petitioner was

subsequently transferred to the United States Penitentiary, Lompoc, California, which is not

within the territory of this Court, but is instead within the territory of the Central District of

California. 

The proper respondent for a habeas petition brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is the

petitioner’s warden. See Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir. 1992). 

Because Petitioner has now been transferred to USP Lompoc, the proper respondent for this

action is now the warden of that facility. Padilla, 542 U.S. at 434-435. The United States

Case 1:06-cv-00386-OWW -TAG Document 12 Filed 12/14/07 Page 2 of 4
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

The Court cannot simply transfer this case to the Central District of California because, under either 28 1

U.S.C. § 1406(a) or § 1631, a prerequisite to transfer is that the transferee court be a court in which the petition

could have been filed at the time of filing. At the time of filing of the instant petition, Petitioner could not have filed

the petition in the Central District of California because his custodian at that time was within the jurisdiction of this

Court. Accordingly, the Court’s only alternative is to dismiss the case. 

3

Supreme Court has indicated that the custodial district is the only district that would have

jurisdiction over Petitioner’s case since that is where he is presently confined. Id. 

In order for a district court to have in personam jurisdiction over a petitioner’s warden,

the petitioner’s place of confinement must be within the territorial limits of the district court. See

id.; Giddings, 740 F.2d at 772. Because Petitioner is now incarcerated at USP Lompoc, the

Court no longer has in personam jurisdiction over the respondent in this action, i.e., Petitioner’s

warden. Thus, the Court no longer has jurisdiction over the petition. Should Petitioner wish to

raise these claims, he must file a new habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the

district court for the judicial district of Petitioner’s current custodian, i.e., the United States

District Court for the Central District of California. 

1

ORDER

In light of the Court’s conclusion that it lacks jurisdiction to proceed, the Court HEREBY

ORDERS that Petitioner’s motion for a scheduling order (Doc. 11), is DENIED as MOOT. 

RECOMMENDATIONS

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the instant petition be DISMISSED for lack

of jurisdiction. 

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of

the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. 

Within twenty (20) days after being served with a copy, any party may file written objections

with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections

to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Replies to the objections shall be served

and filed within fifteen (15) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after service of the

objections. The District Judge will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to

Case 1:06-cv-00386-OWW -TAG Document 12 Filed 12/14/07 Page 3 of 4
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

4

28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Judge’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 14, 2007 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:06-cv-00386-OWW -TAG Document 12 Filed 12/14/07 Page 4 of 4