Opinion
Case No. CIV-20-353-D
07-02-2020
ANTONE LAMANDINGO KNOX, Petitioner, v. TOMMY SHARP, Warden, Respondent.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner, a state prisoner appearing pro se, filed an amended petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Doc. 9. Chief United States District Judge Timothy D. DeGiusti has referred the matter to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for initial proceedings consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), (C).
Citations to a court document are to its electronic case filing designation and pagination. Quotations are verbatim unless indicated.
"A petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 attacks the execution of a sentence rather than its validity and must be filed in the district where the prisoner is confined." Haugh v. Booker, 210 F.3d 1147, 1149 (10th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted). Petitioner is not confined in this district. Rather, Petitioner is incarcerated at the Oklahoma State Penitentiary (OSP), McAlester, Pittsburg County, Oklahoma, a facility located within the territorial jurisdiction of the Eastern District of Oklahoma. See 28 U.S.C. §116(b). Thus, this Court lacks jurisdiction over his petition.
Petitioner has previously filed five other § 2241 petitions in this Court, all while housed at OSP, that the Court transferred to the Eastern District for the same reasons stated in this Report and Recommendation. See Knox v. Sharp, No. CIV-19-790-F, Doc. 8 (W.D. Okla. Aug. 29, 2019) (recommending transferring matter to Eastern District), adopted, Doc. 10; Knox v. Carpenter, No. CIV-19-191-F, Doc. 8 (W.D. Okla. Mar. 5, 2019) (same), adopted, Doc. 10; Knox v. Carpenter, No. CIV-19-92-F, Doc. 8 (W.D. Okla. Feb. 4, 2019) (same), adopted, Doc. 10; Knox v. Carpenter, No. CIV-19-91-F, Doc. 7 (W.D. Okla. Feb. 5, 2019) (same), adopted, Doc. 9; Knox v. Carpenter, No. CIV-18-756-W, Doc. 9 (W.D. Okla. Aug. 24, 2018). Petitioner is well aware of this Court's lack of jurisdiction pertaining to his § 2241 actions while he remains incarcerated at OSP. --------
Still, "[j]urisdictional defects that arise when a suit is filed in the wrong federal district may be cured by transfer under the federal transfer statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1631, which requires a court to transfer such an action if the transfer is in the interest of justice." Haugh, 210 F.3d at 1150 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). It is within this court's discretion to determine whether to transfer an action or instead to dismiss the action without prejudice. See Trujillo v. Williams, 465 F.3d 1210, 1222-23 (10th Cir. 2006).
Review of the instant petition reveals Petitioner is challenging a disciplinary proceeding that he claims resulted in loss of earned credits. Doc. 9, at 2. He alleges exhaustion or attempted exhaustion of administrative and state court remedies. See id. at 2-5.
RECOMMENDATION AND NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT
For these reasons, the undersigned recommends that the interest of justice warrants the transfer of this matter to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma.
The undersigned advises Petitioner of his right to file an objection to this Report and Recommendation with the Clerk of Court on or before July 23, 2020, under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). The undersigned further advises Petitioner that failure to file a timely objection to this Report and Recommendation waives his right to appellate review of both factual and legal issues contained herein. See Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991).
Adoption of this report and recommendation will moot any outstanding motions. See Doc. 4.
This Report and Recommendation disposes of all issues and terminates the referral to the undersigned Magistrate Judge in the captioned matter.
ENTERED this 2nd day of July, 2020.
/s/_________
SUZANNE MITCHELL
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE