Opinion
Civil Action 24-cv-11388-LTS
05-30-2024
ADRIAN MAAS, Petitioner, v. WARDEN OF FCI DANBURY, Respondent.
ORDER
LEO T. SOROKIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
In this action, pro se petitioner Adrian Maas challenges the revocation of his placement in a Residential Reentry Center. Mass. is incarcerated at FCI Danbury in Connecticut.
District courts are limited to granting habeas relief ‘within their respective jurisdictions.'” Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 442 (2004) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a)). Unless a statute explicitly states otherwise, “for core habeas petitions challenging present physical confinement, jurisdiction lies in only one district: the district of confinement.” Id. at 443. Here, Maas challenges his present physical confinement at a facility located within the District of Connecticut. Because Mass. is not confined in the District of Massachusetts, the Court is without jurisdiction to provide habeas relief.
Accordingly, the Court orders that this action be TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. See 28 U.S.C. § 1631 (providing for transfer of an action to cure lack of jurisdiction).
SO ORDERED.