Opinion
C/A No. 8:19-cv-3055-RMG-JDA
10-31-2019
Charles Antoine Burgess, Petitioner, v. United States, Respondent.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Charles Antoine Burgess ("Petitioner"), proceeding pro se, brings this habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. [Doc. 1.] Petitioner is an inmate in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") and is presently incarcerated at FCI Butner, in Butner, North Carolina. [Id. at 2.] Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2), D.S.C., the undersigned Magistrate Judge is authorized to review such petitions for relief and submit findings and recommendations to the District Judge. For the reasons below, the undersigned recommends that the instant action be transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina.
DISCUSSION
Petitioner seeks to be released from custody based on a number of grounds alleged in his Petition. However, this Court does not have jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims.
A § 2241 habeas action generally challenges the execution or implementation of a federal prisoner's sentence, such as the BOP's administration of the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program, computation of sentence, prison disciplinary actions, and prison transfers. See Fontanez v. O'Brien, 807 F.3d 84, 87 (4th Cir. 2015). District courts are authorized to grant writs of habeas corpus "within their respective jurisdictions," 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a), and such writs "shall be directed to the person having custody of the person detained," 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Therefore, the proper party respondent is generally the "person who has the immediate custody of the party detained, with the power to produce the body of such party before the court or judge." Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 435 (2004) (internal quotation marks omitted). Similarly, because "the court issuing the writ [must] have jurisdiction over the custodian," generally in "habeas petitions challenging present physical confinement, jurisdiction lies in only one district: the district of confinement." Id. at 442-43 (internal quotation marks omitted).
In this case, Petitioner appears to challenge the computation of his sentence. [Doc. 1 at 2.] Petitioner was sentenced in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina. [Id.] However, as stated, he is presently incarcerated at FCI Butner in Butner, North Carolina. [Id.] Petitioner's current custodian, the Warden of FCI Butner, is therefore the proper party respondent to Petitioner's § 2241 Petition. Accordingly, this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain this Petition. See Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. at 445 ("[T]he custodian's absence from the territorial jurisdiction of the district court is fatal to habeas jurisdiction."); United States v. Morgan, 305 F. App'x 61, 62 (4th Cir. 2008) ("A § 2241 petition . . . must be brought in the district of incarceration."). FCI Butner is located within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. Morgan, 305 F. App'x at 62. Therefore, Petitioner's § 2241 Petition should be transferred to the Eastern District of North Carolina for further consideration and proceedings. See Feller v. Brock, 802 F.2d 722, 729 n.7 (4th Cir. 1986) ("Although a motion by one of the parties is ordinarily required for transfer, the district court may consider the possibility of transfer sua sponte."); 28 U.S.C. § 1631 (noting a district court should transfer a habeas petition to the proper district court if such transfer would serve the interest of justice); Tairou v. Cannon, No. 1:19-cv-674-JFA-SVH, 2019 WL 1905859, at *1 (D.S.C. Apr. 5, 2019) (recommending transfer of § 2241 action to the appropriate district court with jurisdiction), Report and Recommendation adopted by 2019 WL 1900918 (D.S.C. Apr. 29, 2019).
RECOMMENDATION
Accordingly, it is recommended that the § 2241 Petition filed in this case be transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina.
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.
s/ Jacquelyn D. Austin
United States Magistrate Judge October 31, 2019
Greenville, South Carolina
Petitioner's attention is directed to the important notice on the next page.
Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation
The parties are advised that they may file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation with the District Judge. Objections must specifically identify the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made and the basis for such objections. "[I]n the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must 'only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.'" Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note).
Specific written objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), (d). Filing by mail pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 may be accomplished by mailing objections to:
Robin L. Blume, Clerk
United States District Court
300 East Washington Street, Room 239
Greenville, South Carolina 29601
Failure to timely file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation will result in waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of the District Court based upon such Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).