Source: http://ny.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20150114_0000027.WNY.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-08-17 02:15:05
Document Index: 675934977

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2241', '§ 2241', '§ 2255', '§ 4241', '§ 2255', '§ 2241', '§ 2255', '§ 2241', '§ 2241']

LEXIE WILLIAMS, Petitioner,
GEORGE W. BUSH, KARL ROVE, DOCTOR PYANT and JUDGE BRITT, Respondents.
Petitioner, Lexi Williams, proceeding pro se, filed a petition on a preprinted form to be used by a federal prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. As noted in a previous Motion to Vacate filed by petitioner pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, petitioner, in 2007, had been remanded to the custody of the Attorney General of the United States or his representative pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d) for further evaluation and if appropriate, proceeding pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 4246. Later, on March 20, 2009, based on a finding that petitioner was not competent to stand trial, the criminal indictment against petitioner was dismissed by this Court. ( Williams v. United States, 04-MJ-4085CJS, 14-CV-6228CJS, Docket No. 27, Order.) Petitioner is currently in custody at the Butner Federal Medical Center in Butner, North Carolina.
Petitioner's prior Motion to Vacate, which was liberally considered under both 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and 28 U.S.C. § 2241, was dismissed on the bases that: (1) petitioner had not been convicted and sentenced and thus the Motion under § 2255 was moot because the Court had not imposed a sentence; and (2) even construing the Motion as a petition under § 2241, it had to be dismissed without prejudice because, while a petition under § 2241 could be filed only in the District of petitioner's confinement where the district court in that District had jurisdiction over the warden of the facility where petitioner was confined-Butner - the Court could not transfer the petition to said district court - Eastern District of North Carolina - because petitioner had not paid the filing fee nor filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. ( Williams v. United States, 04-MJ-4085CJS, Docket No. 27, Order, at 2) (citing Santulli v. United States, 2003 WL 21488084, at *2-3 (S.D.N.Y. Junne 25, 2003); and Williams v. U.S., 2011 WL 3296101, at *20 (S.D.N.Y. July 28, 2011) (citing Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 447 (2004)).) Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition is transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. The determination of petitioner's application to proceed in forma pauperis has ...