NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

REY HENRIQUEZ, :

: Civil Action No. 11-3504 (NLH)

Petitioner, :

:

v. : OPINION

:

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, :

et al., :

:

Respondents. :

APPEARANCES:

Petitioner pro se

Rey Henriquez

GD1107

SCI Coal Township

1 Kelley Drive

Coal Township, PA 17866

HILLMAN, District Judge

This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Rey Henriquez’s

Petition for habeas corpus relief. He has paid the $5.00 filing 1

fee. Petitioner is an inmate confined at the State Correctional

Institution at Coal Township, in Coal Township, Pennsylvania. He

has named as respondents in this action the Department of

Corrections, the Superintendent of SCI Coal Township, Unit Manager

D-Block, and B-Side Counselor. It appears that Petitioner seeks to

be transferred to the New Jersey Department of Corrections pursuant

 The matter was docketed as an action filed pursuant to 28 1

U.S.C. § 2254, however, Petitioner drafted the petition pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 as referenced in the petition. 

Case 1:11-cv-03504-NLH Document 4 Filed 02/27/12 Page 1 of 6 PageID: 45
to the Interstate Corrections Compact. Petitioner seeks only

interstate transfer; he does not seek a reduction in the time of

his sentence. The relief requested in the petition is that

Petitioner requests for this Court to “grant a hearing in this

matter and/ or issue a Rule to Show Cause on the respondents.” For

reasons discussed below, the Petition for habeas corpus relief must

be denied with prejudice for lack of jurisdiction, or in the

alternative, as meritless.

I. DISCUSSION

A. Sua Sponte Dismissal

United States Code Title 28, Section 2243 provides in relevant

part as follows:

A court, justice or judge entertaining an application for

a writ of habeas corpus shall forthwith award the writ or

issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why

the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from

the application that the applicant or person detained is

not entitled thereto.

A pro se pleading is held to less stringent standards than

more formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Estelle v. Gamble,

429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520

(1972). A pro se habeas petition and any supporting submissions

must be construed liberally and with a measure of tolerance. See

Royce v. Hahn, 151 F.3d 116, 118 (3d Cir. 1998); Lewis v. Attorney

General, 878 F.2d 714, 721-22 (3d Cir. 1989); United States v.

Brierley, 414 F.2d 552, 555 (3d Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 399 U.S.

912 (1970). Nevertheless, a federal district court can dismiss a

2

Case 1:11-cv-03504-NLH Document 4 Filed 02/27/12 Page 2 of 6 PageID: 46
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 37, 45

(3d Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1025 (1989). See also 28

U.S.C. §§ 2243, 2255.

B. Section 2241 Jurisdiction

Section 2241 jurisdiction is limited to the district in which

a petitioner is being held in custody. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a);

Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 434-36 (2004); Braden v. 30th

Judicial Circuit Court, 410 U.S. 484, 500 (1973) (personal

jurisdiction over a federal habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2241 lies in the federal district in which the custodian

of the petitioner resides); Yi v. Maugans, 24 F.3d 500, 507 (3d

Cir. 1994)(“[a] district court’s habeas corpus jurisdiction is

territorially limited and extends only to persons detained and

custodial officials acting within the boundaries of that

district”); United States v. Kennedy, 851 F.2d 689, 690 (3d Cir.

1988); Valdivia v. Immigration and Naturalization Serv., 80

F.Supp.2d 326, 332-333 (D.N.J. 2000). 

By Petitioner’s own admission, he is confined at a state

correctional facility in Coal Township, Pennsylvania, and was

confined there at the time of filing his petition. Since

Petitioner is currently confined in Pennsylvania, this Court has no

3

Case 1:11-cv-03504-NLH Document 4 Filed 02/27/12 Page 3 of 6 PageID: 47
personal jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a). As such,

the petition will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

B. The Petition Is Meritless

In the alternative to lack of jurisdiction, the petition is

nevertheless meritless.

The pending petition, dated June 15, 2011, was received by the

Clerk of the Court for the United States District Court, District

of New Jersey on June 17, 2011. Petitioner did not pay the filing

fee nor did he submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis. 

Accordingly, the matter was administratively terminated on June 23,

2011. Petitioner paid the filing fee on July 18, 2011 and the

matter was thereafter reopened for consideration. 

In the petition, Petitioner states that on August 9, 2010 he

attempted to file a request to transfer to the State of New Jersey,

pursuant to the Interstate Corrections Compact but was “given the

run-around.” He states that subsequent requests to transfer were

not approved and that he received a denial letter from the

Department of Corrections on January 21, 2011. Petitioner appears

to have attempted to exhaust his remedies but has not received the

relief sought, namely, a transfer from the Pennsylvania system to

New Jersey. He now seeks a hearing or an order to show cause

regarding this issue. 

On June 28, 2011, the Clerk of the Court for the United States

District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania received from

4

Case 1:11-cv-03504-NLH Document 4 Filed 02/27/12 Page 4 of 6 PageID: 48
Petitioner what appears to be the exact petition originally

submitted in this Court, dated June 15, 2011. On July 26, 2011, 2

Chief Judge Yvette Kane of the Middle District of Pennsylvania

denied the petition without prejudice, citing Preiser v. Rodriguez,

411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973), for the proposition that while a prisoner

seeking to challenge the fact or duration of his confinement must

seek relief via a habeas corpus petition, habeas corpus is not the

appropriate means when the relief sought by a prisoner does not

affect the duration of confinement. 

Further, Chief Judge Kane quoted the Third Circuit’s holding

in Leamer v. Fauver, 288 F.3d 532, 542 (3d Cir. 2002):

[W]henever the challenge ultimately attacks the ‘core of

habeas’ – the validity of the continued conviction or the fact

or length of the sentence – a challenge, however denominated

and regardless of the relief sought, must be brought by way of

a habeas corpus petition. Conversely, when the challenge is

to a condition of confinement such that a finding in the

plaintiff’s favor would not alter his sentence or undo his

conviction, an action under § 1983 is appropriate.

Petitioner’s petition in the Middle District of Pennsylvania

was denied without prejudice.

Here, Petitioner states that he wishes to transfer from SCI

Coal Township to an unspecified facility in New Jersey. He does

not seek a reduction in sentence or release from custody. Though

he does not explicitly state so in his petition, Petitioner

apparently seeks for this Court to issue an order to force the

 Henriquez v. Moore Smeal, et al, 1:11-cv-01217. 2

5

Case 1:11-cv-03504-NLH Document 4 Filed 02/27/12 Page 5 of 6 PageID: 49
Pennsylvania Department of Corrections to transfer him to the New

Jersey Department of Corrections. A petition for a writ of habeas

corpus is not the proper avenue by which Petitioner may seek such

relief. Even if such a request was to be granted, the potential

transfer does not appear to be related to the fact or duration of

Petitioner’s confinement. As such, in the alternative to lack of

jurisdiction, the pending petition will be denied as without

merit. 

3

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the petition will be dismissed

with prejudice because this District Court lacks jurisdiction

over the matter, or in the alternative, because the petition is

meritless. An appropriate order follows. 

At Camden, New Jersey s/ Noel L. Hillman 

Noel L. Hillman

United States District Judge

Dated: February 24, 2012

 This Court does not express any opinion as to the merits 3

of Petitioner’s claims should he present them in the future as

civil rights claims pursuant 42 U.S.C. § 1983 filed in the proper

venue.

6

Case 1:11-cv-03504-NLH Document 4 Filed 02/27/12 Page 6 of 6 PageID: 50