Opinion
1:22-cv-00298-JDL
09-29-2022
ROLAND PELLETIER, Petitioner, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent
RECOMMENDED DECISION ON 28 U.S.C. § 2241 PETITION
JOHN C. NIVISON, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Petition, ECF No. 1.) Petitioner alleges that he is in custody at the Brevard County Jail in Sharpes, Florida, and is evidently serving a sentence.
Pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, upon the filing of a petition, the Court must conduct a preliminary review of the petition, and “must dismiss” the petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” See McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994) (“Federal courts are authorized to dismiss summarily any habeas petition that appears legally insufficient on its face. . .”). Although Petitioner asserts his claim pursuant to § 2241, “the § 2254 rules specifically state that they may be applied by the district court to other habeas petitions.” Bramson v. Winn, 136 Fed.Appx. 380, 382 (1st Cir. 2005) (citing Rule 1(b) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases). A preliminary review of the petition, therefore, is appropriate.
Discussion
“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)). “We have interpreted this language to require ‘nothing more than that the court issuing the writ have jurisdiction over the custodian.'” Id. (quoting Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Ky., 410 U.S. 484, 495 (1973)). “The plain language of the habeas statute . . . confirms the general rule that for core habeas petitions challenging present physical confinement, jurisdiction lies only in one district: the district of confinement.” Id. at 443. “Whenever a § 2241 habeas petitioner seeks to challenge his present physical custody within the United States, he should name his warden as respondent and file the petition in the district of confinement.” Id. at 447.
Because Petitioner requests relief from the conditions of his present physical confinement outside Maine, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the merits of Petitioner's claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a); Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. at 442. Accordingly, dismissal of the petition is warranted .
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing analysis, I recommend the Court dismiss the petition without prejudice. I further recommend that the Court deny a certificate of appealability, because there is no substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
Notice
A party may file objections to those specified portions of a magistrate judge's report or proposed findings or recommended decisions entered pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) for which de novo review by the district court is sought, together with a supporting memorandum, within fourteen (14) days of being served with a copy thereof.
Failure to file a timely objection shall constitute a waiver of the right to de novo review by the district court and to appeal the district court's order.