UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

KAMARA ABDULAI BUNDU,

Petitioner, Case No. 3:17-cv-291

vs.

UNITED STATES District Judge Thomas M. Rose

ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al., Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman

Respondents.

______________________________________________________________________________

ORDER AND ENTRY: (1) DIRECTING RESPONDENTS TO RESPOND TO 

PETITIONER’S PETITION WITHIN 21 DAYS FROM THE ENTRY OF THIS ORDER; 

AND (2) ORDERING THAT THIS CASE BE TRANSFERRED TO THE WESTERN 

DIVISION OF THIS COURT AT CINCINNATI

______________________________________________________________________________

This civil case is before the Court on pro se Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Doc. 1. Petitioner argues that he has been detained for an 

unreasonable period of time in the custody of Defendants and the United States Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) awaiting removal to Sierra Leone. Id.; see also Zadvydas v. 

Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 702 (2001). Specifically, Petitioner has been detained since February 3, 

2017 and contends that there is not a significant likelihood that he will be removed to Sierra 

Leone in the reasonably foreseeable future. Id.

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

applies to actions under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.” Grigsby v. United States, No. 10-CR-105, 2013 WL 

1149595, at *1 n.1 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 19, 2013). Pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 

§ 2254 Cases, the Court must conduct a preliminary review of a habeas petition to determine 

whether “it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not
entitled to relief in the district court.” See also Clark v. Waller, 490 F.3d 551, 554 (6th Cir. 

2007); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2243.

Having carefully reviewed Petitioner’s petition and having conducted the initial review

required by Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, the undersigned concludes that the 

petition is not subject to dismissal on its face and ORDERS the Clerk of Courts to immediately 

serve Respondents with the Petition and all filings of record, including a copy of this Order. 

Respondents shall file and serve upon Petitioner a response within 21 days from receipt of this 

Order. Petitioner may file and serve upon Respondents a reply memorandum within 21 days 

from the filing of the last Respondent’s response.

Because Petitioner is presently confined in the Butler County Jail in Hamilton, Ohio, the 

Court ORDERS that this case be TRANSFERRED to the Western Division of this Court at 

Cincinnati -- which is the seat of Court that serves Butler County, Ohio. See Braden v. 30th 

Judicial Circuit Court, 410 U.S. 484, 495-96 (1973).

1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: October 6, 2017 s/ Michael J. Newman

Michael J. Newman

United States Magistrate Judge

 

1

Petitioner originally filed his petition in the Western Division at Cincinnati. See docs. 1, 3. At 

the time of filing, Petitioner was allegedly detained at the Morrow County Jail in Mt. Gilead, Ohio. Doc. 

1 at PageID 1-4. The Eastern Division of the Court in Columbus, Ohio serves Morrow County, Ohio. 

See S.D. Ohio Civ. R. 82.1(b). Soon after the case was filed, it was transferred to the Western Division at 

Dayton by mistake. It appearing that Petitioner has never been detained in one of the eight counties 

served by the Western Division of the Court at Dayton, the undersigned finds venue improper here and 

finds a transfer back to the Western Division at Cincinnati appropriate in light of Petitioner’s current 

detention within the geographical confines of that venue. Id.