Opinion
Case No. 1:19-cv-00186-JLT (HC)
06-05-2019
CLARENCE D. SCHREANE, Petitioner, v. STEVEN LAKE, Respondent.
ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO TRANSFER PETITION Doc. 11) ORDER TRANSFERRING PETITION TO UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
On February 11, 2019, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1.) On February 14, 2019, after conducting a preliminary review of the petition, the Court issued an order directing Respondent to file a response to the petition. (Doc. 4.) On April 15, 2019, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss or transfer the petition for lack of jurisdiction. (Doc. 11.) Petitioner filed an opposition on May 28, 2019 and Respondent filed a reply to the opposition on June 2, 2019. (Docs. 15, 16.) The Court agrees with Respondent that jurisdiction lies in the Southern District of Indiana. Therefore, the Court will TRANSFER the petition.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge for all purposes. --------
DISCUSSION
Petitioner challenges a disciplinary hearing held on February 28, 2018, while Petitioner was incarcerated at United States Penitentiary, Atwater, California. Respondent has submitted a declaration and custody documents showing that Petitioner has been incarcerated at United States Penitentiary, Terre Haute, Indiana, since October 15, 2018. (Docs. 11-1, 11-2.) Thus, on the date Petitioner filed the instant petition, January 3, 2019, Petitioner was incarcerated at U.S.P.-Terre Haute.
A federal court may not entertain an action over which it has no jurisdiction. Insurance Corp. of Ireland, Ltd. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 701 (1982). Federal courts are always "under an independent obligation to examine their own jurisdiction." FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 231 (1990). Petitioner has filed a habeas petition pursuant to § 2241. A § 2241 petition "must be heard in the custodial court." Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 865 (9th Cir. 2000). Because this Court was not the custodial court at the time Petitioner filed his petition, the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the claims. Jurisdiction lies with the district court that has territorial jurisdiction over the respondent. Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 444 (2004). Thus, jurisdiction lies with the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana.
ORDER
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS:
1) Respondent's motion to dismiss or transfer the petition is GRANTED; andIT IS SO ORDERED.
2) The petition is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana.
Dated: June 5 , 2019
/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE