IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Raymond Edward Chestnut, #13465-

171,

Petitioner,

vs.

Federal Bureau of Prisons,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

C/A No.: 1:15-2770-RBH-SVH

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

Raymond Edward Chestnut (“Petitioner”), proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis, is a federal inmate incarcerated at United States Penitentiary (“USP”) in 

Lewisburg, Pennsylvania.

1 He submitted this petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civ.

Rule 73.02(B)(2)(c) (D.S.C.), the undersigned is authorized to review such petitions for 

relief and submit findings and recommendations to the district judge. For the reasons that 

follow, the undersigned recommends that Petitioner’s habeas corpus petition be 

transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

Petitioner filed this 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition seeking to challenge two 

 

1 Although the petition states Petitioner is incarcerated at Federal Correctional Institution 

(“FCI”) in Bennettsville, South Carolina, the petition is dated September 10, 2013. [ECF 

No. 1]. The envelope containing the petition was deposited in the prison mailing system 

at USP-Lewisburg on July 1, 2015, and the return address on the envelope is United 

States Penitentiary, Lewisburg, PA. [ECF No. 1-1].

Case 3:15-cv-01827-WJN-DB Document 8 Filed 08/19/15 Page 1 of 5
2

disciplinary convictions that deprived him of 41 days good time credits. [ECF No. 1 at 8]. 

Petitioner alleges he did not receive written notice of the charges within 24 hours before 

the disciplinary hearing officer (“DHO”) hearing. Id. Plaintiff also claims he was denied 

an opportunity to call witnesses, was not provided notice of hearing before the DHO, and 

did not receive a copy of the DHO report. Id. Petitioner has previously filed habeas 

petitions concerning these disciplinary convictions in the Middle District of Pennsylvania

in 2013. See Chestnut v. Thomas, No. 3:13-2428-WJN-DB (M.D. Pa. Jan. 14, 2015);

Chestnut v. Thomas, No. 3:13-2370-WJN-DB (M.D. Pa. Jan. 14, 2015). These petitions 

were voluntarily dismissed in 2015. Id.

II. Discussion

A. Standard of Review

Under established local procedure in this judicial district, a careful review has 

been made of this petition pursuant to the Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings for 

the United States District Court,2the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 

1996 (AEDPA), Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214, and other habeas corpus statutes. 

Pro se complaints are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys. 

Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978). A federal court is charged with 

liberally construing a complaint filed by a pro se litigant to allow the development of a 

potentially meritorious case. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). In evaluating a 

 

2

The Rules Governing Section 2254 are applicable to habeas actions brought under 

§ 2241. See Rule 1(b).

Case 3:15-cv-01827-WJN-DB Document 8 Filed 08/19/15 Page 2 of 5
3

pro se complaint, the plaintiff’s allegations are assumed to be true. Fine v. City of N.Y., 

529 F.2d 70, 74 (2d Cir. 1975). The mandated liberal construction afforded to pro se

pleadings means that if the court can reasonably read the pleadings to state a valid claim 

on which the plaintiff could prevail, it should do so. Nevertheless, the requirement of 

liberal construction does not mean that the court can ignore a clear failure in the pleading 

to allege facts that set forth a claim currently cognizable in a federal district court. Weller 

v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387, 390–91 (4th Cir. 1990).

B. Analysis

District courts are authorized to grant writs of habeas corpus “within their 

respective jurisdictions,” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a), and such writs “shall be directed to the 

person having custody of the person detained.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Therefore, the proper 

party respondent is generally the “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.” 

Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 434‒35 (2004) (citation omitted). Similarly, because 

“the court issuing the writ [must] have jurisdiction over the custodian,” generally in 

“habeas petitions challenging present physical confinement, jurisdiction lies in only one 

district: the district of confinement.” Id. at 442‒43 (citation omitted). 

Petitioner is confined in USP-Lewisburg in Pennsylvania. Accordingly, the federal 

district where Petitioner’s current custodian is located is where this § 2241 petition

should be heard. See United States v. Poole, 531 F.3d 263, 271 (4th Cir. 2008) (“The rule 

governing jurisdiction naturally follows from the ‘immediate custodian rule’: a district 

Case 3:15-cv-01827-WJN-DB Document 8 Filed 08/19/15 Page 3 of 5
4

court properly exercises jurisdiction over a habeas petition whenever it has jurisdiction 

over the petitioner’s custodian.”); see also Kanai v. McHugh, 638 F.3d 251, 258 (4th Cir. 

2011) (concluding that “phrase ‘within their respective jurisdictions’ in § 2241(a) 

identifies the proper location of the federal district in which a habeas petition should be 

filed”). As Petitioner’s custodian is subject to service of process in the Middle District of 

Pennsylvania, the court finds that transfer of this petition to that district court is 

appropriate. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404, 1631 (providing for transfer of a case where such 

transfer would serve the interest of justice). 

III. Conclusion and Recommendation

Accordingly, the undersigned recommends that the court transfer Petitioner’s § 

2241 petition to the Middle District of Pennsylvania for all further proceedings. 

IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.

August 19, 2015 Shiva V. Hodges

Columbia, South Carolina United States Magistrate Judge

The parties are directed to note the important information in the attached

“Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation.”

Case 3:15-cv-01827-WJN-DB Document 8 Filed 08/19/15 Page 4 of 5
Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation

The parties are advised that they may file specific written objections to this Report 

and Recommendation with the District Judge. Objections must specifically identify the 

portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made and the basis 

for such objections. “[I]n the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not 

conduct a de novo review, but instead must ‘only satisfy itself that there is no clear error 

on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.’” Diamond v. Colonial 

Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory 

committee’s note). 

Specific written objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of 

service of this Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 

see Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), (d). Filing by mail pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

5 may be accomplished by mailing objections to:

Robin L. Blume, Clerk

United States District Court

901 Richland Street

Columbia, South Carolina 29201

Failure to timely file specific written objections to this Report and 

Recommendation will result in waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of the 

District Court based upon such Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. 

Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States 

v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).

Case 3:15-cv-01827-WJN-DB Document 8 Filed 08/19/15 Page 5 of 5