Opinion
Civil Action No. 02-2053, Section "T"(4)
July 11, 2002
ORDER
This matter was received on transfer from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The record reflects that the petitioner, Evaldas Kudirka, an immigration detainee, filed a petition seeking federal habeas corpus relief in that court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. On March 19, 2001, the Pennsylvania district court issued an extensive order directing Kudirka to take certain actions to assist in his deportation efforts, ordered that he remain in custody and dismissed the habeas corpus petition without prejudice to his right to refile should he fail to obtain just relief through the efforts ordered by the court. Rec. Doc. No. 14.
Rather than refile as ordered by the court, on May 9, 2002, Kudirka filed a Motion to Reopen this matter seeking verification from the Pennsylvania district court that he had complied with the court's order and was now entitled to further relief from that court. Rec. Doc. No. 15. In its haste to transfer Kudirka's case, the Pennsylvania district court failed to rule on the Motion to Reopen, failed to determine whether Kudirka had in fact complied with that court's dismissal order, and instead transferred a dismissed petition in a closed case to this receiving court. At this juncture, the issue is not whether the Pennsylvania district court has jurisdiction over Kudirka's person. Instead, the question is whether this receiving court has jurisdiction to accept the transfer of a dismissed and closed case. It does not.
The petition in the instant matter stands as dismissed by the Pennsylvania district court on March 19, 2001. Rec. Doc. No. 14. The record does not contain any order altering or reconsidering that dismissal. As such, this court is without jurisdiction to consider the merits of the already dismissed petition and must reject the transfer at this time.
Furthermore, it is axiomatic that one district court has no jurisdiction to review the decision of another district court. Accord Celotex Corp. v. Edwards, 514 U.S. 300 (1995) ("It is for the court of first instance to determine the question of the validity of the law, and until its decision is reversed for error by orderly review, either by itself or by a higher court, its orders based on its decision are to be respected.") Therefore, this district court is without jurisdiction or authority to determine whether the petitioner has complied with the Pennsylvania district court's prior dismissal order such to warrant reopening of a dismissed and closed case. That is an issue to be addressed by the Pennsylvania district court. Should that issue be resolved in favor of the petitioner and the case reopened, this court will be free to accept transfer of the reopened case and address the merits of the habeas corpus petition if appropriate.
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS ORDERED that the captioned matter be TRANSFERRED back to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for further proceedings as it deems appropriate.