UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

STEVEN JOHNSON,

Petitioner, Case Number 15-11605

Honorable David M. Lawson

v.

STATE OF MICHIGAN and UNITED

STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondents.

_________________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

Petitioner Steven Johnson, presently confined at the United States Penitentiary Atwater in

Atwater, California, has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. This is

the petitioner’s third petition filed in this district. On April 21, 2015, Judge Borman summarily

dismissed his petition for lack of jurisdiction because the petitioner was incarcerated in California. 

See Johnson v. Warden, No. 15-10889 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 21, 2015). Judge Michelson summarily

dismissed his second petition because it was identical to his earlier petition. See Johnson v. United

States of America, No. 15-11280 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 15, 2015). It is not clear from the face of the

petitioner’s present petition the basis for his challenge to his judgment, the judgment he is

challenging, or whether he is challenging the same judgment as his prior two petitions. 

Nevertheless, the Court must summarily dismiss the petition because the Court lacks jurisdiction.

Upon receipt of a habeas petition, a federal court must “promptly examine [the] petition to

determine ‘if it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the

petitioner is not entitled to relief.’” Crump v. Lafler, 657 F.3d 393, 396 n.2 (6th Cir. 2011) (quoting

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts). “Federal

2:15-cv-11605-DML-EAS Doc # 6 Filed 08/05/15 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 17
courts are authorized to dismiss summarily any habeas petition that appears legally insufficient on

its face . . . .” McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994); see also Martin v. Overton, 391 F.3d

710, 714 (6th Cir. 2004) (stating that Rule 4 allows the summary dismissal of a petition if it plainly

appears that the petitioner is not entitled to relief).

The petitioner’s pleading is legally insufficient on its face because the Court does not have

jurisdiction over the respondent. “[T]he proper respondent to a habeas petition is ‘the person who

has custody over [the petitioner],’” that is, “the warden of the facility where the prisoner is being

held, not the Attorney General or some other remote supervisory official.” Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542

U.S. 426, 434-35 (2004). Thus, “for core habeas petitions challenging present physical confinement,

jurisdiction lies in only one district: the district of confinement.” Id. at 443; see also 28 U.S.C. §

2241(a) (stating that “[w]rits of habeas corpus may be granted by . . . the district courts . . . within

their respective jurisdictions”). Because the petitioner is incarcerated in California, the petitioner

does not have jurisdiction over the respondent. The Court therefore will summarily dismiss the

petitioner’s habeas petition without prejudice.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the petitioner’s petition for habeas corpus is

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

s/David M. Lawson 

DAVID M. LAWSON

United States District Judge

Dated: August 5, 2015

-2-

2:15-cv-11605-DML-EAS Doc # 6 Filed 08/05/15 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 18
PROOF OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served

upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first

class U.S. mail on August 5, 2015.

s/Susan Pinkowski 

SUSAN PINKOWSKI

-3-

2:15-cv-11605-DML-EAS Doc # 6 Filed 08/05/15 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 19