Opinion
Civil Action 23-0090 (UNA)
05-19-2023
HAMID REZA ARDANEH, Plaintiff, v. COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
CHRISTOPHER R. COOPER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter is before the Court on consideration of plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis and pro se complaint. Having considered the complaint and its exhibits, the Court construes plaintiff's submission as a challenge to the legality of his current custody in Massachusetts and, presumably, a demand for release from custody. Thus, the Court treats the civil complaint as if it were a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
A federal court may issue a writ of habeas corpus if a petitioner “is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). A habeas action is subject to jurisdictional and statutory limitations. See Braden v. 30th Judicial Cir. Ct. of Ky., 410 U.S. 484 (1973). The proper respondent in a habeas corpus action is the petitioner's custodian, Rumsfeldv. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 434-35 (2004); Blair-Bey v. Quick, 151 F.3d 1036, 1039 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (citing Chatman-Bey v. Thornburgh, 864 F.2d 804, 810 (D.C. Cir. 1988)), whom plaintiff has not named as a party defendant. And this “district court may not entertain a habeas petition involving present physical custody unless the respondent custodian is within its territorial jurisdiction,” Stokes v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 374 F.3d 1235, 1239 (D.C. Cir. 2004), and plaintiff is in custody in Massachusetts. If habeas relief is available to plaintiff, he “should name his [custodian] as respondent and file the petition in the district of [his] confinement.” Evans v. U.S. Marshals Serv., 177 F.Supp.3d 177, 182 (D.D.C. 2016) (quoting Padilla, 542 U.S. at 447); see Ardaneh v. United States Gov't, 848 Fed.Appx. 7, 8 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (affirming district court's remand in part to Massachusetts court and dismissal in part “to the extent appellant seeks release from confinement [because] the district . . . lacked jurisdiction over appellant's custodian”).
The Court notes that plaintiff filed a substantially similar civil complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, which was dismissed without prejudice under the Younger abstention doctrine. See Ardaneh v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, No. 23-cv-10148-RGS, 2023 WL 1929784 (D. Mass. Feb. 10, 2023), appeal docketed, No. 23-1218 (1st Cir. Mar. 10, 2023). Further, the Court notes that plaintiff's prior habeas action, too, was dismissed without prejudice on abstention grounds. See Ardaneh v. Calis, No. 17-cv-12171 (D. Mass. Dec. 29, 2017).
The Court will grant plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss his complaint without prejudice. A separate order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.