Court Opinion

ID: 9396414
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-22 16:01:19.846845+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:16.789372
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

HAMID REZA ARDANEH,                            )
                                               )
                               Plaintiff,      )
                                               )
       v.                                      )       Civil Action No. 23-0090 (UNA)
                                               )
COMMONWEALTH OF                                )
MASSACHUSETTS, et al.,                         )
                                               )
                               Defendants.     )

                                  MEMORANDUM OPINION

       This matter is before the Court on consideration of plaintiff’s application to proceed in

forma pauperis and pro se complaint. Having considered the complaint and its exhibits, the

Court construes plaintiff’s submission as a challenge to the legality of his current custody in

Massachusetts and, presumably, a demand for release from custody. Thus, the Court treats the

civil complaint as if it were a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

       A federal court may issue a writ of habeas corpus if a petitioner “is in custody in

violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). A

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

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

petitioner’s custodian, Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 434–35 (2004); Blair-Bey v. Quick,

151 F.3d 1036, 1039 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (citing Chatman-Bey v. Thornburgh, 864 F.2d 804, 810

(D.C. Cir. 1988)), whom plaintiff has not named as a party defendant. And this “district court

may not entertain a habeas petition involving present physical custody unless the respondent

                                                   1
custodian is within its territorial jurisdiction,” Stokes v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 374 F.3d 1235,

1239 (D.C. Cir. 2004), and plaintiff is in custody in Massachusetts. If habeas relief is available

to plaintiff, he “should name his [custodian] as respondent and file the petition in the district of

[his] confinement.” Evans v. U.S. Marshals Serv., 177 F. Supp. 3d 177, 182 (D.D.C. 2016)

(quoting Padilla, 542 U.S. at 447); see Ardaneh v. United States Gov’t, 848 F. App’x 7, 8 (D.C.

Cir. 2021) (affirming district court’s remand in part to Massachusetts court and dismissal in part

“to the extent appellant seeks release from confinement [because] the district . . . lacked

jurisdiction over appellant’s custodian”).1

       The Court will grant plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss his

complaint without prejudice. A separate order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

DATE: May 19, 2023                             /s/
                                               CHRISTOPHER R. COOPER
                                               United States District Judge

1
        The Court notes that plaintiff filed a substantially similar civil complaint in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, which was dismissed without prejudice
under the Younger abstention doctrine. See Ardaneh v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, No.
23-cv-10148-RGS, 2023 WL 1929784 (D. Mass. Feb. 10, 2023), appeal docketed, No. 23-1218
(1st Cir. Mar. 10, 2023). Further, the Court notes that plaintiff’s prior habeas action, too, was
dismissed without prejudice on abstention grounds. See Ardaneh v. Calis, No. 17-cv-12171 (D.
Mass. Dec. 29, 2017).

                                                  2