Opinion
1:22-CV-00840
07-11-2022
AKEEM RICKY MILLER, Petitioner, v. STEVE MANNION, et al., Respondents.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Susan E. Schwab United States Magistrate Judge
I. Introduction.
Petitioner Akeem Ricky Miller (“Miller”), who is in immigration detention, filed a “Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief,” challenging his detention. Doc. 1. He also filed an application for an order to show, in which he requests the court “immediately issue an Order to Show Cause against the Respondents and a temporary order staying [his] removal.” Doc. 3 at 6. The United States Attorney responded to the petition for writ of habeas corpus contending that this court lacks jurisdiction because Miller is confined in the Western District of Pennsylvania, not the Middle District of Pennsylvania, and because Miller has not exhausted administrative remedies. See doc. 6 at 1. On June 23, 2022, Miller filed a reply brief arguing, among other things, that he is, in fact, confined in the Middle District, and thus, this court has jurisdiction. Because Miller is confined in the Western District of Pennsylvania, we recommend that the court transfer Miller's petition for a writ of habeas corpus to that district.
II. Discussion.
The petition names as the respondents Steve Mannion, an Immigration Judge; the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”); the United States Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”); DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, Attorney General Merrick Garland; and the Warden of the Moshannon Valley Correctional Facility. But only the Warden of the Moshannon Valley Correctional Facility is a proper respondent.
“The federal habeas statute straightforwardly provides that the proper respondent to a habeas petition is ‘the person who has custody over [the petitioner].'” Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 434 (2004) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2242 and citing 28 U.S.C. § 2243, which provides that “[T]he writ, or order to show cause shall be directed to the person having custody of the person detained”). “The consistent use of the definite article in reference to the custodian indicates that there is generally only one proper respondent to a given prisoner's habeas petition.” Id. Under what is called the “immediate custodian rule,” the warden or superintendent of the prison where the petitioner is held is considered the immediate custodian for purposes of a habeas action. Id. at 442. “The logic of this rule rests in an understanding that ‘the warden . . . has day-to-day control over the prisoner and . . . can produce the actual body.” Anariba v. Dir. Hudson Cnty. Corr. Ctr., 17 F.4th 434, 444 (3d Cir. 2021) (quoting Yi v. Maugans, 24 F.3d 500, 507 (3d Cir. 1994)).
Here, Miller is detained at the Moshannon Valley Processing Center. See doc. 10 at 7. Thus, only the Warden of the Moshannon Valley Processing Center is the proper respondent. Court and judges may only grant a writ of habeas corpus “within their respective jurisdictions.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a). Thus, whether the Moshannon Valley Processing Center is within the Middle District of Pennsylvania determines whether this court has jurisdiction over Miller's habeas petition.
In his petition, Miller also calls the facility where he is detained the Moshannon Valley Correctional Facility. See. doc. 1 ¶¶ 35, 71; see also doc. 10 at 2. And the United States refers to this facility as the Moshannon Valley Correctional Center. See doc. 6 at 1, 5. There is no basis to think that the parties are not talking about the same facility. We note that the Moshannon Valley Correctional Facility was once a private facility that contracted with the Federal Bureau of Prisons to house federal prisoners. See https://www.thecourierexpress.com/news/geos-moshannon-valley-correctional-facility-loses-federal-contract/articlec7896d80-0d c6-5cb4-a1b0-9bce70879317.html (last visited July 8, 2022). It has since been repurposed as an immigration detention facility. See https://www.geogroup.com/ FacilityDetail/FacilityID/67 (last visited July 8, 2022) (“The Moshannon Valley Processing Center is a privately owned and operated secure immigration processing center.”).
The United States contends that the Moshannon Valley Processing Center is in the Western District of Pennsylvania. Miller, on the other hand, contends that it is in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. He argues that the Moshannon Valley Processing Center has an address of 555 Geo Drive, Philipsburg, Pennsylvania; Philipsburg is in Centre County; Centre County is in the Middle District of Pennsylvania; and therefore, the Moshannon Valley Processing Center is in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Miller's argument is faulty, however, because although the Moshannon Valley Processing Center has a Philipsburg address, that does not mean that it is in Philipsburg proper or within Centre County. Rather, although having a Philipsburg address, the facility is located in adjacent Clearfield County. See https://gantnews.com/2021/09/29/moshannon-valley-correctional-facility-to-reopen-as-ice-center/ (last visited July 8, 2022) (describing the facility as “near Philipsburg” and discussing proposed contracts with the Clearfield County Commissioner's, the GEO Group, and ICE regarding the facility); https://www. wesa.fm/courts-justice/2021 -09-30/a-new-immigrant-detention-center-will-open-in -former-clearfield-county-prison (last visited July 8, 2022) (describing the facility as in Clearfield County). And Clearfield County is within the Western District of Pennsylvania. See 28 U.S.C. § 118(c).
Courts in this district have repeatedly recognized that the Moshannon Valley Correctional Center is in the Western District of Pennsylvania, and they have transferred cases involving that facility to the Western District. See Henry v. Lynch, No. 3:16-CV-2451, 2017 WL 126129, at *1 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 12, 2017) (“The “Moshannon Valley Correctional Center is located in Philipsburg, Clearfield County, Pennsylvania. Clearfield County is in the Western District of Pennsylvania. See 28 U.S.C. § 118(c). Applying the ‘district of confinement rule' to this case, the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania has jurisdiction because Petitioner is currently confined in that district, and was confined in that district at the time he filed his habeas petition. . . . Thus, this Court does not have jurisdiction over the instant habeas petition and the action will be transferred to the Western District of Pennsylvania.”); Camacho v. United States, No. 1:15-CV-0606, 2015 WL 1913025, at *1 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 24, 2015) (transferring 2241 habeas petition to the United States District Court of the Western District of Pennsylvania given that the petitioner was detained at the Moshannon Valley Correctional Center); Bearam v. Wigen, No. 3:CV-12-2289, 2013 WL 1750964, at *1 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 20, 2013) (recommending that civil rights action regarding conditions at the Moshannon Valley Correctional Center, which is located in Decatur Township in Clearfield County, Pennsylvania, be transferred to the Western District of Pennsylvania), report and recommendation adopted, 2013 WL 1750999, at *1 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 23, 2013); Barron v. United States, No. CIV. 1:CV-09-0816, 2009 WL 1675738, at *1 (M.D. Pa. June 15, 2009) (adopting report and recommendation of magistrate judge to transfer civil rights action concerning events at the Moshannon Valley Correctional Institution to the Western District because that facility is in Clearfield County, Pennsylvania).
Likewise, the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania recognizes that the Moshannon Valley Correctional Center is located in that district. See e.g., Sanchez-Delatorre v. United States, No. 3: 20-CV-0018, 2020 WL 8812807, at *1 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 17, 2020) (“At the time of his filing, Petitioner was confined at the Moshannon Valley Correctional Center in Philipsburg, Clearfield County, Pennsylvania, which is located in the Western District of Pennsylvania. . . . Accordingly, the case was transferred to this Court on January 31, 2020.”); Norfolk v. GEO Grp., Inc., No. 3:17-CV-204, 2020 WL 1873991, at *1 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 15, 2020) (observing that the “[d]efendant operates a private prison in Clearfield County, Pennsylvania” and concluding that venue of that civil action regarding events the Moshannon Valley Correctional Center was proper in that district because a substantial portion of the events giving rise to claims occurred in the Western District of Pennsylvania). As has the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. See Tsoukalas v. United States, 215 Fed.Appx. 152 (3d Cir. 2007) (observing that the petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania “[w]hile incarcerated at the Moshannon Valley Correctional Facility in Clearfield County, Pennsylvania,” reasoning that a § 2241 habeas petition must be filed in the district having jurisdiction over the petitioner's custodian, which in that case was the Western District of Pennsylvania, and concluding that the Middle District lacked jurisdiction to hear the petition).
Because Miller is detained at the Moshannon Valley Processing Center, which is in the Western District of Pennsylvania, this court does not have jurisdiction over Miller's habeas petition.
When a federal court lacks jurisdiction, it may transfer the case to another federal court that does have jurisdiction if it is in the interest of justice to do so. See 28 U.S.C. § 1631. “In determining whether transfer is ‘in the interest of justice,' courts have considered whether the failure to transfer would prejudice the litigant, whether the litigant filed the original action in good faith, and other equitable factors.” United States v. Banks, 372 Fed.Appx. 237, 239 (3d Cir. 2010) (quoting § 1631).
We conclude that it would be in the interest of justice to transfer this action given that parties have already briefed the issue of whether the petition should be dismissed for lack of exhaustion; given that dismissing the action without prejudice so that Miller could refile in the Western District would delay the action; given that although we reject Miller's assertion that he is detained in this district, we cannot say that he took that position in bad faith; and given that the parties have not identified any equitable factors that would weigh against transfer. As many of the above-cited cases show, courts often transfer under these circumstance. See Henry, 2017 WL 126129, at * 2 (transferring the case to the Western District of Pennsylvania); Camacho, 2015 WL 1913025, at *1 (same); Bearam, 2013 WL 1750999, at *1 (same); Barron, 2009 WL 1675738, at *1 (same). Thus, we will recommend that the court transfer this case to the Western District of Pennsylvania.
III. Recommendation.
Based on the foregoing, we recommend that the court transfer this case to the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.
The Parties are further placed on notice that pursuant to Local Rule 72.3:
Any party may object to a magistrate judge's proposed findings, recommendations or report addressing a motion or matter described in 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) or making a recommendation for the disposition of a prisoner case or a habeas corpus petition within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. Such party shall file with the clerk of court, and serve on the magistrate judge and all parties, written objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations or report to which objection is made and the basis for such objections. The briefing requirements set forth in Local Rule 72.2 shall apply. A judge shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge, however, need conduct a new hearing only in his or her discretion or where required by law, and may consider the record developed before the magistrate judge, making his or her own determination on the basis of that record. The judge may also receive further evidence, recall witnesses or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.