Opinion
Civil Action 23-11627-IT
09-14-2023
FELIX VICENTE, JR., Plaintiff, v. NAPLES JAIL CENTER, Defendant.
ORDER
INDIRA TALWANI, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Felix Vicente, Jr., while in custody at the Naples Jail Center in Naples, Florida, and proceeding pro se, filed a one-page pleading stating that his “name is allegedly Felix Vicente Jr.,” and that he “did not sign for this contract.” [Doc. No. 1].
In the first paragraph of the pleading, Vicente states that he asked his “kidnapper, and commander under what law they are operating on.” Id. In the second paragraph, he states that he is claiming himself “as a sovereign citizen” and references the Uniform Commercial Code. Id. Vicente concludes by stating that “all government officials are on notice of [his] citizen discharge.” Id.
The court construes the pleading as a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. No. 1]. As such, the court lacks jurisdiction because Vicente is not confined in the District of Massachusetts, but rather in the Middle District of Florida. See Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 443 (2004) (holding that habeas corpus jurisdiction lies in district of confinement); 28 U.S.C. §2241(a) (“Writs of habeas corpus may be granted by.. .the district court[],. .within [its],. jurisdiction[]”).
Before dismissing the action for lack of jurisdiction, the court considers whether “it is in the interest of justice [to] transfer such action ... to any other such court in which the action ... could have been brought at the time it was filed.” 28 U.S.C. § 1631. Here, it is not in the interest of justice to transfer this petition where the release sought by Vicente is based upon the Uniform Commercial Code which does not afford Vicente habeas relief.
Accordingly, the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. No. 1] is DENIED and the action is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. The clerk shall enter a separate order of dismissal.
SO ORDERED.