Court Opinion

ID: 9780982
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 15:02:12.62514+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:34:17.204727
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

RUSSELL K. HILL,                                        )
                                                        )
                               Petitioner,              )
                                                        )
       v.                                               )     Civil Action No. 23-2270 (UNA)
                                                        )
UNITED STATES, et al.,                                  )
                                                        )
                               Respondents.             )

                                  MEMORANDUM OPINION

       Petitioner Russell K. Hill is a Mississippi prisoner who currently is incarcerated at the

Marshall County Correctional Facility in Holly Springs, Mississippi.           Generally, petitioner

challenges the Mississippi courts’ jurisdiction and demands his immediate release from custody.

       A habeas action is subject to jurisdictional and statutory limitations. See Braden v. 30th

Judicial Cir. Ct. of Ky., 410 U.S. 484, 495 (1973). The proper respondent in a habeas corpus

action is a petitioner’s custodian, who ordinarily is the warden of the facility where a petitioner is

detained. Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 434‒35 (2004). And this “district court may not

entertain a habeas petition involving present physical custody unless the respondent custodian is

within its territorial jurisdiction.” Stokes v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 374 F.3d 1235, 1239 (D.C. Cir.

2004). The petition neither names petitioner’s custodian as a respondent, nor demonstrates that

the proper respondent is in the District of Columbia.

       The Court will grant petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2),

deny his motion for a three-judge panel (ECF No. 3), and dismiss his petition (ECF No. 1) without

prejudice for want of jurisdiction. A separate order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

                                                  1
DATE: August 29, 2023       _______________________
                            CARL J. NICHOLS
                            United States District Judge

                        2