Opinion
C. A. 1:22-1948-TMC-SVH
10-18-2022
Elvis Nectali Bermudez Castellon a/k/a Jose Renato Burmudez Castellon, Petitioner, v. Bureau of Prisons, Respondent.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Shiva V. Hodges United States Magistrate Judge
Elvis Nectali Bermudez Castellon a/k/a Jose Renato Burmudez Castellon (“Petitioner”) is a federal inmate now in the custody of the United States Penitentiary in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania (“USP Lewisburg”). He filed this petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. This matter was referred to the undersigned for pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civ. Rule 73.02(B)(2)(c) (D.S.C.). For the reasons that follow, the undersigned recommends the district judge transfer this case to the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
According to a search of inmate records by inmate number, Petitioner's correct name is Elben Neptalu Burmudes-Castellon. A court may take judicial notice of factual information located in postings on government websites. See Philips v. Pitt Cnty. Mem'l Hosp., 572 F.3d 176, 180 (4th Cir. 2009) (finding that court may “properly take judicial notice of matters of public record”).
I. Factual and Procedural Background
Petitioner brought this action on June 21, 2022, when he was housed at the Federal Correctional Institution-Williamsburg in Salters, South Carolina. [ECF No. 1]. On July 28, 2022 and August 22, 2022, the undersigned issued orders directing Petitioner to bring this case into proper form. [ECF Nos. 5, 8]. Petitioner requested extensions, stating he was going to transfer institutions, but that he had given permission for release of his prison funds to pay the filing fee. [ECF No. 10]. A search of the BOP website indicates Petitioner has been transferred to custody of USP Lewisburg. See https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ (last visited September 20, 2022).
II. Discussion
District courts are authorized to grant writs of habeas corpus “within their respective jurisdictions,” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a), and such writs “shall be directed to the person having custody of the person detained.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Therefore, the proper party respondent is generally the “person who has the immediate custody of the party detained, with the power to produce the body of such party before the court or judge.” Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 434-35 (2004) (citation omitted). Similarly, because “the court issuing the writ [must] have jurisdiction over the custodian,” generally in “habeas petitions challenging present physical confinement, jurisdiction lies in only one district: the district of confinement.” Id. at 442-43 (citation omitted).
Although Petitioner was incarcerated in the District of South Carolina, he is presently incarcerated at USP Lewisburg. Petitioner's current custodian, the Warden of USP Lewisburg, is therefore the proper party respondent to Petitioner's § 2241 petition. Accordingly, this petition is better considered by the Middle District of Pennsylvania. See Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. at 445 (“[T]he custodian's absence from the territorial jurisdiction of the district court is fatal to habeas jurisdiction.”). The undersigned finds transfer of the instant petition to the Middle District of Pennsylvania would serve the interests of justice and would not prejudice either party. See Feller v. Brock, 802 F.2d 722, 729 n.7 (4th Cir. 1986) (“Although a motion by one of the parties is ordinarily required for transfer, the district court may consider the possibility of transfer sua sponte.”).
The court notes that this District is not deprived of subject matter jurisdiction by Petitioner's transfer. See Hill v. Quintana, 770 Fed.Appx. 66, 57 (4th Cir. 2019). However, given the early stage of this litigation, transfer is appropriate in this particular case.
III. Conclusion and Recommendation
For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned recommends this case be transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.
The parties are directed to note the important information in the attached “Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation.”
Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation
The parties are advised that they may file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation with the District Judge. Objections must specifically identify the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made and the basis for such objections. “[I]n the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must ‘only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.'” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's note).
Specific written objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); see Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a), (d). Filing by mail pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 may be accomplished by mailing objections to:
Failure to timely file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation will result in waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of the District Court based upon such Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).