IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

PRUDENCIO LAUREANO BRATINI, :

:

Petitioner :

:

v. : CIVIL NO. 4:CV-15-488

:

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : (Judge Brann)

:

Respondent :

MEMORANDUM

April 3, 2015

Background

Prudencio Laureano Bratini, an inmate presently confined at the Moshannon

Valley Correctional Institution, Philipsburg, Pennsylvania (Moshannon Valley)

filed this pro se action which will be construed as seeking habeas corpus relief

under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.1

 Petitioner has also filed an in forma pauperis application

which will be granted for the sole purpose of the filing of this matter with this

Court. 

1

 Habeas corpus review under § 2241 “allows a federal prisoner to challenge

the ‘execution’ of his sentence.” Woodall v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 432 F.3d 235,

241 (3d Cir. 2005). Review is available “where the deprivation of rights is such that it

necessarily impacts the fact or length of detention.” Leamer v. Fauver, 288 F.3d 532,

540 (3d Cir. 2002).

1

Case 4:15-cv-00488-MWB-JVW Document 5 Filed 04/03/15 Page 1 of 3
Named as sole Respondent is the United States of America.2

 Petitioner

indicates that he is a non-violent offender presently serving a federal criminal

sentence. Bratini states that he is willing to waive his right to a deportation

hearing prior to the completion of his sentence. See Doc. 1, ¶ 1. 

Petitioner’s pending action does not challenge the legality of his federal

criminal conviction or resulting sentence. Rather, Bratini requests as relief only

that he be immediately deported back to his native country without having to

complete the remainder of his federal sentence. For the reasons outlined below,

Bratini’s action will be transferred to the United States District Court for the

Western District of Pennsylvania.

Discussion

Relief pursuant to § 2241 may only be sought in the district court having

jurisdiction over a petitioner’s custodian. See Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426,

442 (2004)(jurisdiction for habeas corpus petitions challenging present physical

confinement lies in only one district; the district of confinement); Braden v. 30th

Judicial Circuit Court, 410 U.S. 484, 494-95 (1973). 

Although having a mailing address as Philipsburg, Pennsylvania, which is

2

 The only properly named Respondent in a federal habeas corpus action is

Petitioner’s custodial official, in this case the Moshannon Valley Warden. See 28

U.S.C. § 2242. 

2

Case 4:15-cv-00488-MWB-JVW Document 5 Filed 04/03/15 Page 2 of 3
located in Centre County and within the confines of the Middle District of

Pennsylvania, Moshannon Valley Correctional Center is actually located in

Decatur Township, Clearfield County, Pennsylvania, which is within the

jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Western District of

Pennsylvania. See Tsoukalas v. United States, 215 Fed. Appx. 152 (3d Cir.

2007)(jurisdiction over a § 2241 petition filed by Moshannon Valley inmate rests

with the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania).

As recognized in Tsoukalas, this Court lacks jurisdiction over the Warden of

Moshannon Valley. A court may transfer any civil action for the convenience of

the parties or witnesses, or in the interest of justice, to any district where the action

might have been brought. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Consequently, this matter will be

transferred to the United States District Court for the Western District of

Pennsylvania pursuant to § 1404(a). An appropriate Order will enter.

BY THE COURT:

 s/ Matthew W. Brann 

Matthew W. Brann

United States District Judge

3

Case 4:15-cv-00488-MWB-JVW Document 5 Filed 04/03/15 Page 3 of 3