From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Morris v. Federal Acquisition Policy Division

United States District Court, D. Columbia
Mar 21, 2011
Civ. Action No. 11-0549 (ESH) (D.D.C. Mar. 21, 2011)

Opinion

Civ. Action No. 11-0549 (ESH).

March 21, 2011


MEMORANDUM


Petitioner, a prisoner at the Federal Correctional Institution in Fort Dix, New Jersey, seeks a writ of habeas corpus, but he has named the wrong respondent and has filed in the wrong court. "The writ[] or order to show cause [why the writ should not be granted] shall be directed to the person having custody of the person detained." 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Furthermore, "a 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); see Rooney v. Sec'y of Army, 405 F.3d 1029, 1032 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (habeas "jurisdiction is proper only in the district in which the immediate . . . custodian is located") (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

The Federal Acquisition Policy Division is not a proper habeas respondent, and petitioner's recourse lies, if at all, in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Accordingly, this action will be dismissed. A separate order accompanies this Memorandum.


Summaries of

Morris v. Federal Acquisition Policy Division

United States District Court, D. Columbia
Mar 21, 2011
Civ. Action No. 11-0549 (ESH) (D.D.C. Mar. 21, 2011)
Case details for

Morris v. Federal Acquisition Policy Division

Case Details

Full title:DANTE MORRIS, Petitioner, v. FEDERAL ACQUISITION POLICY DIVISION…

Court:United States District Court, D. Columbia

Date published: Mar 21, 2011

Citations

Civ. Action No. 11-0549 (ESH) (D.D.C. Mar. 21, 2011)