NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

TIMOTHY CONNELL, :

: Civil Action No. 11-0616 (RMB)

Petitioner, :

:

v. : OPINION and ORDER

:

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, :

et al., :

:

Respondents. :

APPEARANCES:

Petitioner pro se

#226264-3NC

Camden County Correctional Facility

330 Federal Street

P.O. Box. 90431

Camden, N.J. 08101

BUMB, District Judge

Petitioner, confined at Camden County Correctional Facility

in Camden, New Jersey, has submitted for filing to the Clerk of

this Court a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241. He has paid the $5 filing fee. Petitioner names as

respondents U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. Parole Commission,

John Doe, and Jane Doe.

Among other things, 28 U.S.C. § 2242 requires the petition

for a writ of habeas corpus to allege “the name of the person who

has custody over [the petitioner].” See also 28 U.S.C. § 2243

Case 1:11-cv-00616-RMB Document 2 Filed 02/25/11 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 9
(“The writ, or order to show cause shall be directed to the

person having custody of the person detained.”). “[T]hese

provisions contemplate a proceeding against some 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, that he

may be liberated if no sufficient reason is shown to the

contrary.” Wales v. Whitney, 114 U.S. 5674, 574 (1885) (emphasis

added).

A federal district court can dismiss a habeas corpus

petition if it appears from the face of the petition that the

petitioner is not entitled to relief. See Lonchar v. Thomas, 517

U.S. 314, 320 (1996); Siers v. Ryan, 773 F.2d 34, 45 (3d Cir.

1985), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1025 (1989). See also 28 U.S.C.

§ 2243.

It appearing that:

1. The circumstances of Petitioner’s incarceration as

presented in the Petition are vague. The Court construes that

Petitioner’s parole has been revoked and that he is in Camden

County Correctional Facility as a contract prisoner. 

Nevertheless, he must name as a respondent the individual who has

immediate custody over him. 

2. Petitioner has failed to name as a respondent an

indispensable party the warden of the facility in which he is

confined.

2

Case 1:11-cv-00616-RMB Document 2 Filed 02/25/11 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 10
3. Under the circumstances of this case, the warden of the

facility where the petitioner is held is an indispensable party

respondent, for want of whose presence the petition must be

dismissed.

Accordingly,

IT IS on this 25th day of February 2011,

ORDERED that the Petition shall be DISMISSED without

prejudice; and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall send Petitioner a

blank form to be used in a § 2241 habeas corpus petition; and it

is further

ORDERED that, if Petitioner wishes to reopen this action, he

shall so notify the Court within 45 days of the date of entry of

this Order, in writing addressed to the Clerk of the Court,

Mitchell H. Cohen Building and U.S. Courthouse, Fourth and Cooper

Streets, Camden, New Jersey, 08101; Plaintiff’s writing shall

include an amended petition naming the warden of the facility in

which he is confined as a party respondent and also providing a

clear statement of his claims conforming to the standards of a

proper § 2241 habeas corpus petition; and it is finally

ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall close the file in

this matter. 

s/Renée Marie Bumb 

Renée Marie Bumb

United States District Judge

3

Case 1:11-cv-00616-RMB Document 2 Filed 02/25/11 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 11