Opinion
Case: 1:15-cv-00868 (G Deck)
05-29-2015
JOSEPH DIXON MIDYETTE, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Respondents.
Assigned To : Unassigned
Assign. Date : 6/9/2015
Description: Habeas Corpus/2254
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on petitioner's pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus. A habeas action is subject to jurisdictional and statutory limitations. See Braden v. 30th Judicial Cir. Ct. of Ky., 410 U.S. 484 (1973). The proper respondent in a habeas corpus action is petitioner's custodian, Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 434-35 (2004); Blair-Bey v. Quick 151 F.3d 1036, 1039 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (citing Chatman-Bey v. Thornburgh, 864 F.2d 804, 810 (D.C. Cir. 1988)), who in this case is the Warden of Maury Correctional Institution in North Carolina. Because this "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 Comm'n, 374 F.3d 1235, 1239 (D.C. Cir. 2004), ordinarily the Court would transfer this matter to the district in which petitioner currently is incarcerated. However, because the Court recently has ordered the transfer of a substantially similar habeas petition to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, see Midyette v. United States of America, No. 15-cv-0674 (UNA) (D.D.C. May 1, 2015), this matter will be dismissed as duplicative. DATE: 5/29/15
/s/_________
United States District Judge