IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

Jaime Montes-Montes, :

Petitioner, :

v. : Case No. 2:11-cv-87

Federal Bureau of Prisons, : JUDGE MICHAEL H. WATSON

 Magistrate Judge Kemp

Respondent. :

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Petitioner, a federal prisoner housed at the Northeast Ohio

Correctional Center in Youngstown, Ohio, has filed a habeas

corpus petition in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2241. He

has also requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis. His

petition seeks review of a decision of the Bureau of Prisons

which denied his request for a transfer to a federal correctional

facility in California.

28 U.S.C. §2241(a) allows district judges to grant writs of

habeas corpus “within their respective jurisdictions.” This

language has been interpreted to mean that a writ of habeas

corpus may be issued “‘only in the district of confinement.’”

Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 442 (2004), quoting Carbo v.

United States, 364 U.S. 611, 618 (1961). Petitioner is not

confined in the Southern District of Ohio, but the Northern

District. Therefore, no district judge in this district has

jurisdiction to issue the requested writ.

Based on this absence of jurisdiction, it is recommended

that this case be transferred to the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Ohio at Youngstown. See 28 U.S.C.

§1631 (if a case is filed in a court which lacks jurisdiction,

“the court shall, if it is in the interest of justice, transfer

such action to any other such court in which the action ... could

have been brought at the time it was filed ...”). Because this

Case: 2:11-cv-00087-MHW-TPK Doc #: 2 Filed: 02/03/11 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
-2-

Court does not have jurisdiction, the Court makes no ruling on

the request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis nor any

determination of the merits of the petition.

 PROCEDURE ON OBJECTIONS

 If any party objects to this Report and Recommendation, that

party may, within fourteen days of the date of this Report, file

and serve on all parties written objections to those specific

proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made,

together with supporting authority for the objection(s). A judge

of this Court shall make a de novo determination of those

portions of the report or specified proposed findings or

recommendations to which objection is made. Upon proper

objections, a judge of this Court may accept, reject, or modify,

in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made herein,

may receive further evidence or may recommit this matter to the

magistrate judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1).

 The parties are specifically advised that failure to object

to the Report and Recommendation will result in a waiver of the

right to have the district judge review the Report and

Recommendation de novo, and also operates as a waiver of the

right to appeal the decision of the District Court adopting the

Report and Recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140

(1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir.1981).

 /s/ Terence P. Kemp 

 United States Magistrate Judge

Case: 2:11-cv-00087-MHW-TPK Doc #: 2 Filed: 02/03/11 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>