Opinion
Case No. 04-CV-282 (FB).
August 31, 2004
Bryson R. Persaud, pro se, Gadsden, Alabama, for the Petitioner.
ROSLYNN R. MAUSKOPF, ESQ., United States Attorney, By: MARGARET KOLBE, ESQ., Assistant United States Attorney Brooklyn, New York, for the United States.
ORDER
On August 4, 2004, this Court granted petitioner Bryson Persaud ("Persaud") thirty (30) days to amend his habeas corpus petition. Upon further review, the Court has sua sponte determined that it lacks jurisdiction to entertain the petition in light of Rumsfeld v. Padilla. See FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 231 (1990) ("federal courts are under an independent obligation to examine their own jurisdiction"). In Rumsfeld v. Padilla, the Supreme Court announced the "general rule" that, "for core habeas petitions challenging present physical confinement, jurisdiction lies in only one district: the district of confinement." 124 S.Ct. 2711, 2722 (2004). Jurisdiction is determined by the district of confinement "as of the time of filing of the petition." Patel v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 334 F.3d 1259, 1263 (11th Cir. 2003). At the time of filing, petitioner was confined in the territorial jurisdiction of the Western District of Louisiana. As this Court lacks jurisdiction over the matter, the Order granting Persaud permission to amend his petition is hereby vacated.
When a civil action is filed in a district court that lacks jurisdiction, that court "shall" transfer such action to "any other such court in which the action . . . could have been brought at the time it was filed or noticed" if the court determines that a transfer would be "in the interest of justice." 28 U.S.C. § 1631 (emphasis added). See, e.g., Tenrreiro v. Ashcroft, 2004 WL 1588217, at *2 (D. Or. July 12, 2004) (transferring habeas petition to district of confinement under section 1631). Finding that a transfer of the habeas petition would be in the interest of justice, the Court orders the petition to be transferred to the proper district court. See Roman v. Ashcroft, 340 F.3d 314, 329 (6th Cir. 2003) ("We believe that it would be in the interest of justice to transfer the action because a dismissal of the action would only cause [petitioner] to incur the additional expense of filing the same habeas corpus petition [in the jurisdiction]."). Although petitioner is currently confined in Alabama, at the time that he filed this petition he was confined in the Western District of Louisiana. Accordingly, the Court orders the petition to be transferred to the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana.