Opinion
CV 24-6080-SSS(E)
09-23-2024
JOHN BALLARD, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES, Respondent.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
CHARLES F. EICK, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This Report and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable Sunshine Suzanne Sykes, United States District Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 636 and General Order 05-07 of the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
PROCEEDINGS
On July 17, 2024, Petitioner, a person in federal custody, filed a "Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus" ("Petition"). On August 13, 2024, Respondent United States of America ("Respondent") filed a "Motion to Dismiss, etc." ("Motion to Dismiss"). On September 16, 2024, Petitioner filed "Petitioner's Opposition to Respondent's Motion to Dismiss" ("Opposition").
BACKGROUND
Petitioner and Respondent agree that, at the time the Petition was filed, Petitioner was not in custody within the Central District of California. Petitioner contends he then was in custody in Oklahoma (Opposition, p. 2) . Respondent contends Petitioner then was in custody in North Carolina (or at least enroute thereto) (Motion to Dismiss, p. 2). Petitioner and Respondent also agree that Petitioner presently is in custody at FCI Butner, which is within the Eastern District of North Carolina (Opposition, p. 2; Motion to Dismiss, p. 2) .
Respondent contends that this Court should dismiss the Petition. Petitioner contends that this Court should retain the Petition or, alternatively, transfer the Petition to the United States District Court for Eastern District of North Carolina.
DISCUSSION
Writs of habeas corpus may be granted by the United States District Courts "within their respective jurisdictions." 28 U.S.C. section 2241(a); see Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 442 (2004). Section 2241(a) requires that "the court issuing the writ have jurisdiction over the custodian." Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court, 410 U.S. 484, 495 (1972). This rule ensures that the custodian will be amenable to service of process. Id.; see also Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 248 (9th Cir. 1989). For this purpose, a federal detainee's "custodian" is the warden of the particular facility in which the detainee is confined. See Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S, at 447; see also Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249-250 (9th Cir. 1989) (a district court lacks in personam jurisdiction over the warden of an institution located in another district). Hence, this Court should not retain the Petition because the Court would lack jurisdiction to order Petitioner's present custodian to release him. See id.
A transfer of the Petition to the Eastern District of North Carolina technically may not be an available option. When a court finds that a civil action lacks jurisdiction, the court "shall, if it is in the interest of justice, 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. In the present case, however, if Petitioner is correct regarding the place of his custody at the time the Petition was filed, the Petition then could not have been filed in the Eastern District of North Carolina.
In any event, dismissal rather than transfer will not materially prejudice Petitioner. Petitioner, represented by counsel, has already asked the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina for a hearing as soon as possible to test the legality of Petitioner's custody. See Document 383 filed September 3, 2024, in United States v. Ballard, No. 5:10-hc-02155-FL (E.D. N.C. ). Thus, as a practical matter, a transfer of the Petition to the Eastern District of North Carolina would result in little more than a redundancy of proceedings.
RECOMMENDATION
For the reasons discussed herein, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Court issue an order: (1) accepting and adopting this Report and Recommendation; and (2) directing that Judgment be entered dismissing the action without prejudice.
NOTICE
Reports and Recommendations are not appealable to the Court of Appeals, but may be subject to the right of any party to file objections as provided in the Local Rules Governing the Duties of Magistrate Judges and review by the District Judge whose initials appear in the docket number. No notice of appeal pursuant to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure should be filed until entry of the judgment of the District Court.