Opinion
15-cv-202-wmc
04-02-2015
ROGER DALE GODWIN, Petitioner, v. WARDEN TERRY O'BRIEN, et al., Respondents.
OPINION AND ORDER
Roger Dale Godwin is presently incarcerated by the Bureau of Prisons at a United States Penitentiary in West Virginia as the result of his conviction in United States v. Godwin, No. 13-cr-51-rtr (W.D. Wis.). Godwin has now filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, seeking relief from his sentence of imprisonment, among other things. He has neither paid the filing fee nor requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Even assuming that he is indigent, his request for leave to proceed as a pauper must be denied and the petition dismissed for reasons set forth briefly below.
Federal courts have jurisdiction to issue writs of habeas corpus under § 2241 only where the petitioner is "in custody in violation of the constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c). To proceed under § 2241, a prisoner must name his custodian (typically, the warden) as respondent and file the petition in a district court that has jurisdiction over his custodian. See Samirah v. O'Connell, 335 F.3d 545, 551 (7th Cir. 2003). Thus, the Seventh Circuit has emphasized that a collateral attack brought under § 2241 must be litigated where the prisoner is located. See Al-Marri v. Rumsfeld, 360 F.3d 707, 709-10 (7th Cir. 2004). In other words, "the only court with jurisdiction [over a § 2241 petition] would be the federal district court where the movant is imprisoned." United States v. Mitilesteadt, 790 F.2d 39, 40 (7th Cir. 1986). Because Godwin is not in custody within the Western District of Wisconsin, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider his petition.
The court notes that Godwin also includes allegations concerning the conditions of his confinement at USP-Hazelton. These allegations will not likely be considered in the same lawsuit because they are actionable, if at all, in a civil rights action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and not in a habeas petition. See Glaus v. Anderson, 408 F.3d 382, 387 (7th Cir. 2005) (observing that a federal prisoner's challenge to the conditions of his confinement is actionable under Bivens, but may not be raised in a habeas corpus petition). More importantly for present purposes, because the underlying claims arose in West Virginia, the Western District is once again not the proper forum. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that Roger Dale Godwin's request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED and his petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.
Entered this 2nd day of April, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
/s/_________
WILLIAM M. CONLEY
District Judge