Opinion
Civil Action No. 1407
08-22-2012
Marco Edmonds-El, Petitioner, v. State of Maryland, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Petitioner, proceeding pro se, has submitted a document captioned "Affidavit of Fact Writ of Habeas Corpus" and an application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will grant the application to proceed in forma pauperis and will dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.
The grounds of the petition are not clearly stated, but petitioner lists his address as the County Correctional Center in Upper Marlboro, Maryland, and he "demands [the writ] to void Judgment made by State of Maryland, Prince George's County Department of Correction Detention Center." Pet. at 1. The proper respondent in habeas corpus cases is the petitioner's warden or immediate custodian, Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 439 (2004); Blair-Bey v. Quick, 151 F.3d 1036, 1039 (D.C. Cir. 1998), and "a 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 Commission, 374 F.3d 1235, 1239 (D.C. Cir. 2004); accord Rooney v. Secretary of Army, 405 F.3d 1029, 1032 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (habeas "jurisdiction is proper only in the district in which the immediate, not the ultimate, custodian is located") (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
Since petitioner has not named a proper habeas respondent, who, in any event, would not be found in the District of Columbia, the Court will dismiss this action without prejudice to petitioner's filing of a proper action in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland.
___________
United States District Judge