bMORANDUM OPINION

ERIC HOLDER, JR., et al.,

Respondents.

APPEARANCES:

Petitioner pç se

Uche AdimEssex County Correctional Facility

354 Doremus Avenue

Newark, NJ 07105

CHESLER, District Judge

Petitioner Uche Adim, an alien confined, in connection with

removal proceedings, at Essex County Correctional Facility in

Newark, New Jersey, has filed a Petition for writ of habeascorpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging his prolonged

detention.

The filing fee for a petition for writ of habeas corpus is

$5.00. Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 54.3(a), the filing fee is

required. to be paid at the time the.. petition is presented for

fili.np, Pursuant to Local... Civil Rule 8.. .2(b), whe.never a

prisoner submits a petition for wr... it of habeas and seeks to

proceed in forma pperis, that peti.tioner must submit (a) an

affidavit .etting fort.h information which establishes that t.he
it Ft C) Ft ft Ft CD

CD CU C) CD C) CD C)) CD CD CD CD lCD CD C) C) 

C) H3 CD fri CD CD CD CD C) IC) ft Ft IC) Ft CD CD C) 

CD C) C) C) H- H- H- C) 

C) CD C) CD fr-h C) H- CD Ft Ft CD ft H- CD C) 

C) C) CD C) C) it C) C) C) H- H- it C) H- C) H- Ft 

)C CD E C) H- C) C) C) L< CD H- C) C) CD H- C) CD >C 

C) C) Ft C) C) it CD CD Ft CD C) C) ft CD C) Ft C) 

CD H- C) H- C) CD CD C) CD CD CD CD H- CD H- C) C) 

C) Ft C) ft C) C) C) Ft C) CD C) C) CD Ft C) ft C) 

H- - CD C) Ft CD H- C) C) C) 

C) C) C) Ft C) H- H- CD CD C) ft CD Ft ft CD 

CD) C) C) frt Ft C) fr-h Ft Ft CD C) C) C) C) C) C) C) H- C) C)) 

C) C) C) C) H- it C) C) C) CD CD C) CD C) C) 

C) CD C) CD C) HI CD C) < C) C) CU) C) CD it C) C)) CD 

C) C) fri CD C) CD C) C) H- it C) H- C) it it CD CD H- 

CD C) C) C) C) C) C) CD C) Ft H- C) it C) Ft 

it C) — CD rt CD H- C) Ft H- C) H- C) C) H- 

C) CD ft CD C) C) it Ft H- C) CD CD C) H- C) CD C) H- 

C) C) C) CD H- CD C) • C) Ft Ft C) C) C) C) Ft C) C) C) 

CD C) CD CD C) H- it C) H- C) 

Ft C) C) C) Ft CD C) CD C) C) it C) C) C)) Ft 

C) C) C) C) CD C) H- Ft C) C) - C) < Ft CD C) C) C) 

it CD C) C) C) Ft C) it CD C)) CDI C) H- CD 

CD Ft C) C)) C) C) C) H- C) Ft it ft C)) C) C) Ft C) 

Ft C) H- C it CD C) C) it C) H- C) C) it C) C) C) 

C) C) Ft CD CO C) CD C) Ft H- E H- C) C) CD CD C) C) C) 

CD E H- C) CD C) H- CD CD CD C) CD it Ft H- 

C) Ft (C) C) C) C) C) it Ft it CD Co H- C) CD 

C) C) C) C) * CD C) it CD H- it C) Ft C) 

CD CD CD it CD C) C)) Ft it C) C) C) • CD C) ft C) 

C) C) C) CD C)) C) CD CD CD C) Ft C) H- Ft it C) CD C) CD 

it CD CD it C) C) CD C) CD CD CD H- C) C) CD CD C) 

C) CD it • C) Ft CD C) it H- CD C) C) C) CD 

C) ()) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) it CD C)- 

CD C) it CD C) CD C) CD C) C) - • CD Ft CD H- 

C) C) CD C) CD it CD CU) CD C)) it it H- Ft C) 

CD CD CC) it Ft Ft C) C) H- it C) • H- Ft CD CD 

Ft it CD it • it CD H- Ft it CD it C) C) H- Ft 

CD it CD Ft CD C) C) it C) CD it CD CD C) H- C) C) H- 

H- C) it it C) CD CD C) C) C) C) it Ft 

C) C) CD CD C) Ft C) C) CD it it it CD C) 

CD CD .it C) C) Ft H- CD it CD H- CD C) Ft Ft 

C) CD C) CD C) C) Ft C) CD Ft • it C) H- 

C) .() CD CD CD H- Ft CD CD C) it H- Ft CD CD C) 

H- C) C) C) C) • C) C) — C) C) )< C) 

C) CC) CD H- CD C) CD C) C) CD C) C) C) CD 

• CD CX) C) C) C) CD H- C) C) CD CD it 

C) C) CD Ft Ft C) Ft C) C) - it C) CD C) 

Ft Cl. it CD • H- C) H- C) CD C) C) Ft CD 

CD C) C) CD CD C) CD C) CD H- C) 

— C) it it Ft C) CD C) Ft CD C) CD it C) 

H C) C) it CD C) C) C) C) it CD > H- C) 

Ft C) CD CD CD CC) C) CD C) C) it C) C) 

C) C) Ft H- C) CD Ft H- C) C) C) CD C) 

CD C) C) H- C) CD H- C) H- H- C) Ft Ft 

CD it it CD CD Ft CD C) Ft C) C) CD C) - H- 

CD C) C) Ft H- C) CD C) CD it C) C) 

CD it CD H- C) Ft C) it C) C) it Ft C) C) 

it C) Ft C) C) C) ‘-C) -I CD C) C) • C) 

C) H- CD C) CD CD C) C) C) CD H- 

it C) C) CD CD CD C) C) 

t C) it CD CD C) C) C) CD 

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

added).

In accord with the statutory language and Wales’ immediate custodian rule, longstanding practice confirms that in habeas challenges to present physical confinement — wcore challenges” — the default rule is that the proper respondent is the warden of the facility where the prisoner is being held, not the Attorney General or some other remote supervisory official.

Rumafeld v. Padilla, 542 U.s. 426, 434—436 (2004) (citations

omitted) 1

In the context of alien detainees, the Court of Appeals for

the Third Circuit has held,

It is the warden of the prison or the facility where the detainee is held that is considered the custodian for purposes of a habeas action. This is because it is the warden that has day—to—day control

over the prisoner and who can produce the actual body. That the district director has the power to release the detainees does not alter our conclusion. Otherwise, the Attorney General of the United States could be considered the custodian of every alien and prisoner in

1 In Padilla, the Supreme Court also noted (1) the open question whether the Attorney General is a proper respondent to a habeas petition filed by an alien detained pending deportation and (2) the implicit exception to the immediate custodian rule in the military context where an American citizen is detained outside the territorial jurisdiction of any district court. 542 U.S. at 435—36, n.8, 9.

3
Thus, under the circumstances of this case, t.he warden of

the facility where Petitioner is held is an indispensable partyrespondent. Padilla, 542 U.S. at 441 (“when the Government

moves a habeas petitioner after she properly files a petition

naming her inediate custodian, the District Court retainsjurisdiction and may direct the writ to any respondent within its

jurisdiction who has legal authority to effectuate the prisoner’s

release”); Chavez—Rivas v. Olsen, 194 F.Supp.2d 368 (D.N.J. 2002)

(where an INS detainee properly files a habeas petition in the

district where he is confined, and the INS subsequently transfers

the petitioner to a facility outside that district, the United

States Attorney General may be deemed a “custodian” to allow the

original district court to retain jurisdiction)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, United States district courts

have power to issue writs of habeas corpus “within theirre.spective jurisdictions,” also Zadvydas....v,....Dayis, 533 U.S.

678, 688 (2001) (“5 2241 habeas corpus proceedings remain

available as a forum for statu.tory and constitutional challenges

to post—removal-period detention”) . Thus, the court issuing the

writ must be able to exercise personal jurisdiction over the
Together they compose simple rule that has been

consistently applied in th.e lower courts, including in

the context of military detentions: Whenever § 2241

habeas petitioner seeks to challenge his present

physical custody within the United States, he should

name his warden as respondent and file the petition inthe district of confinement.

Padilla, 542 U.S. at 446—47 (citations and footnote omitted)

For the foregoing reasons, if Petitioner seeks to re—open

this matter, he must attach to such request an amended petition

naming a proper respondent.

CONCLUS ION

For the reasons set forth above, the Clerk of the Court will

be ordered to administratively terminate the Petition withoutprejudice. Petitioner will be granted leave to move to re—open

within 30 days, by either prepaying the $5.00 filing fee or

submitting a complete application for leave to proceed j11 forma

auperis. Any application to re—open this matter must be

accompanied by an amended petition naming a proper respondent.

Sn appropriate Order will be entered, ..lThaiey R. Che..sler

United State.s District Judge I c Dated , I