Miller v. District Director of I.N.S.

Full title: RICHARD MILLER v. THE DISTRICT DIRECTOR OF THE I.N.S., et al

Court: United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Date published: Jun 9, 2004

Civil Action No. 04-2329 (E.D. Pa. Jun. 9, 2004)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 04-2329.

June 9, 2004

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

DIANE WELSH, Magistrate Judge

Presently before the Court is a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.¹ Petitioner is currently confined in York, Pennsylvania. For the reasons which follow, the petition should be transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

1 The petition is styled as an "Emergency Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to Section 2241."

BACKGROUND

According to the habeas petition, petitioner is a native of Jamaica. See Hab. Pet. at 1. The petition indicates that petitioner was convicted of possession of marijuana and related offenses in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia, id., and on September 26, 2000, he was sentenced to two (2) years probation,² id. at 2. Petitioner further states that on November 5, 2002, he was arrested by officials from the Immigration and Naturalization Service ("INS") due to his conviction for possession of marijuana. Id.

2 It appears that petitioner currently has pending in this Court two consolidated petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Civil Action Nos. 04-1422 and 04-1346) which appear to challenge his underlying state conviction.

The habeas petition alleges that petitioner was then detained in federal custody at the York County Prison, and deportation proceedings were initiated. Id. Petitioner states that he was released on bond, but on November 4, 2003, he was rearrested by INS officials and again held at the York County Prison. Id.

The petition further alleges that on January 28, 2004, an Immigration Judge ordered that petitioner be deported as an aggravated felon. Id. Petitioner states that on May 11, 2004, the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") affirmed the January 28, 2004 deportation order. Id. at 1. Petitioner initiated the present habeas proceedings to challenge the deportation order on the ground that "he was not an aggravated felon." Id. at 6. He also requests "a STAY of Deportation pending the resolution of all his litigation."³ Id.

3 By Order filed June 1, 2004 in this case, the Honorable Marvin Katz ordered, among other things, that "the United States and all of its departments, agencies, bureaus, agents, officers and employees, including the defendant or defendants, are ENJOINED from deporting petitioner from the United States until further notice of this court."

DISCUSSION

The statute governing jurisdiction over writs of habeas corpus provides that writs may be granted by "the district courts . . . within their respective jurisdictions." 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a). This provision has been interpreted to mean that, under § 2241(a), habeas relief may only be sought in the district court having jurisdiction over the petitioner's "custodian." See Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484 (1973);Billiteri v. United States Bd. of Parole, 541 F.2d 938, 948 (2d Cir. 1976) ("In order for a court to entertain a habeas action, it must have jurisdiction over the petitioner's custodian."); Beeman v. Pennsylvania, 1988 WL 13258, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 19, 1988). The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has held that "[i]t is the warden of the prison or the facility where the detainee is held that is considered the custodian for purposes of a habeas action." Yi v. Maugans, 24 F.3d 500, 507 (3d Cir. 1994) (holding that warden of INS facility where detainee was held was custodian for purposes of habeas action).⁴

In the present case, it appears that petitioner is confined at the York County Prison in York, Pennsylvania. York County is not located within the jurisdictional boundaries of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. See 28 U.S.C. § 118(a). Rather, it is located within the jurisdictional boundaries of the Middle District. Id. § 118(b); see also Yang v. Reno, 925 F. Supp. 320, 325 (M.D. Pa. 1996) (acknowledging that York County Prison is located in the Middle District of Pennsylvania); Petrova v. Director of INS, 1996 WL 8022, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 2, 1996) (same). As such, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a), the petition should be transferred to the Middle District of Pennsylvania. See Yi, 24 F.3d at 507; Valdivia v. INS, 80 F. Supp.2d 326, 333 (D.N.J. 2000) (following Third Circuit's holding in Yi v. Maugans, court transferred habeas petition to the district court having jurisdiction over the warden of the INS facility where petitioner was confined); Petrova, 1996 WL 8022, at *2 (transferring habeas petition from the Eastern District to the Middle District of Pennsylvania where, although District Director of INS assigned to the case was located in Philadelphia, petitioner was in "custody" for purposes of § 2241 at York County Prison); Wang v. Reno, 862 F. Supp. 801, 812 (E.D.N.Y. 1994) (holding that the warden of the INS detention facility is the appropriate respondent for habeas purposes).

My Recommendation follows.

RECOMMENDATION

AND NOW, this day of June, 2004, upon consideration of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, for the reasons stated in the accompanying Report, it is RECOMMENDED that this case be TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.