Summary
transferring a § 2241 petition to the district of confinement pursuant to Padilla
Summary of this case from U.S. v. HayOpinion
Case No. CV-04-3386 (FB).
August 23, 2004
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
On August 6, 2004, Petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 seeking a stay of deportation and release from custody. He is presently detained at the Buffalo Federal Detention Facility, 4250 Federal Drive, Batavia, New York. On August 6, 2004, this Court issued an Order to Show Cause temporarily restraining and enjoining the execution of the final order of removal. Upon further review, and in light of the Supreme Court's recent decision in Padilla, the Court has sua sponte determined that it lacks jurisdiction to entertain the petition. See FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 231, 110 S.Ct. 596, 607, 107 L.Ed.2d 603 (1990) ("federal courts are under an independent obligation to examine their own jurisdiction").
In Rumsfeld v. Padilla, ___ U.S. ___, 124 S.Ct. 2711, ___ L.Ed.2d ___ (2004), the Supreme Court recently announced the "general rule" that, "for core habeas petitions challenging present physical confinement, jurisdiction lies in only one district: the district of confinement." Id. at 2722. However, the Supreme Court recognized two "explicit" statutory exceptions: (1) dual jurisdiction in either the district of confinement or conviction for state criminal prisoners under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d) and (2) jurisdiction in the district of sentencing for federal criminal prisoners under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Id. Neither exception is applicable in the present case.
Petitioner is currently confined in the jurisdictional territory of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, which retains exclusive jurisdiction over the petition. See id. at 2274 ("Whenever a § 2241 habeas petitioner seeks to challenge his present physical custody within the United States, he should name his warden as respondent and file the petition in the district of confinement."). Because this Court lacks jurisdiction over the petition, the Order to Show Cause is hereby vacated.
When a civil action is filed in a district court that lacks jurisdiction, that court may transfer such action to "any other such court in which the action . . . could have been brought at the time it was filed or noticed" if the court determines that a transfer would be "in the interest of justice." 28 U.S.C. § 1631. See, e.g., Tenrreiro v. Ashcroft, No. CV 04-768, 2004 WL 1588217, at *2 (D. Or. July 12, 2004) (transferring habeas petition to district of confinement under section 1631). Because the Court determines that a transfer of the habeas petition would be in the interest of justice, the Court orders the petition to be transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York.