From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mehmood v. Unknown

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, C.D. California, Eastern Division
Nov 22, 2013
EDCV 13-1947 JGB (AJW) (C.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2013)

Opinion


YASIR MEHMOOD, Petitioner, v. UNKNOWN, Respondent. No. EDCV 13-1947 JGB (AJW) United States District Court, C.D. California, Eastern Division. November 22, 2013

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER TRANSFERRING PETITION

          JESUS G. BERNAL, District Judge.

         Petitioner, a federal pretrial detainee, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on March 5, 2008. Petitioner currently is incarcerated at the Sacramento County Main Jail, in Sacramento County, California. [Petition at 4]. Sacramento County is located in the Eastern District of California. 28 U.S.C. § 84(b).

         A writ of habeas corpus may be granted by the district courts "within their respective jurisdictions." 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a). The court issuing the writ must have personal jurisdiction over the custodian. Braden v. 30th Judicial Cir. Ct. of Kentucky , 410 U.S. 484, 495 (1973); Malone v. Calderon , 165 F.3d 1234, 1237 (9th Cir. 1999). A federal prisoner's section 2241 habeas petition challenging his or her present physical custody within the United States must name as respondent his or her "immediate custodian, " that is, the warden of the facility where the prisoner currently is confined, and must be filed in the district of confinement. Rumsfeld v. Padilla , 542 U.S. 426, 442, 447 (2004). See also Braden , 410 U.S. at 494-499; Brittingham v. United States , 982 F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir. 1992).

Petitioner also has failed to name a proper respondent.

         Where, as here, the district court lacks jurisdiction with respect to a petition brought under section 2241, the court may transfer the petition to any other court "in which the action could have been brought if it is in the interest of justice.'" Miller v. Hambrick , 905 F.2d 259, 262 (9th Cir. 1990)(quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1631). Transferring the action to the Eastern District of California is appropriate, because the petition could have been brought in that court. See Miller , 905 F.2d at 262; Goldlawr, Inc. v. Heiman , 369 U.S. 463, 467 (1962). Accordingly, this action is transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California.

         It is so ordered.


Summaries of

Mehmood v. Unknown

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, C.D. California, Eastern Division
Nov 22, 2013
EDCV 13-1947 JGB (AJW) (C.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2013)
Case details for

Mehmood v. Unknown

Case Details

Full title:YASIR MEHMOOD, Petitioner, v. UNKNOWN, Respondent.

Court:United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, C.D. California, Eastern Division

Date published: Nov 22, 2013

Citations

EDCV 13-1947 JGB (AJW) (C.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2013)