Opinion
Civil Action No. 11 0423.
February 24, 2011
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On a preprinted form designed for the filing of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, petitioner brings this action against the Executive Director of the Nevada Department of Corrections for the purpose of securing documents pertaining to his arrest and conviction. If the requested documents are not produced, petitioner demands in the alternative that the court "ORDER the EXTINSHMENT [sic] OF THE CASE, NPT, WITH PREJUDICE, forthwith." Pet. at 7 (emphasis in original).
Petitioner has raised a similar claim, unsuccessfully, in the United States Court for the District of Nevada. See Collins v. People of the State of Nevada, No. 2:10-cv-1458, 2010 WL 5288197 (D. Nev. Dec. 16, 2010).
"[W]hen a state prisoner is challenging the very fact or duration of his physical imprisonment, and the relief he seeks is a determination that he is entitled to immediate release or a speedier release from that imprisonment, his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus." Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). However, this district court may not entertain this habeas petition because petitioner is not physically confined in the District of Columbia. See Stokes v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 374 F.3d 1235, 1239 (D.C. Cir. 2004). Rather, a petition properly is filed in "the district within which the State court was held which convicted and sentenced him[.]" 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d).
Accordingly, the Court will dismiss this action. An Order is issued separately.
DATE: Feb. 16, 2011