Opinion
CIVIL NO. 1:CV-08-1338.
July 23, 2008
MEMORANDUM
I. Introduction
Alexander Sylvester, an inmate at USP-Allenwood, White Deer, Pennsylvania, has filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The sole respondent in this matter is the New York State Board of Parole.
Sylvester's petition is extremely brief. However it is clear that Sylvester is not challenging his current federal conviction but rather takes issue with the State of New York's recent decision to lodge a parole violation warrant and/or detainer against him. Sylvester seeks to prevent the State of New York from acquiring custody over him as he believes it is inconsistent with his federal sentencing order.
Because the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York has concurrent jurisdiction over this petition and because Sylvester is challenging a detainer or warrant issued from that state, this petition is better adjudicated in the Northern District of New York and will be transferred there.
II. Background
III. Discussion
Id. see Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Ky. 410 U.S. 484 488-8993 S.Ct. 1123112635 L.Ed.2d 443Rumsfeld v. Padilla 542 U.S. 426438124 S.Ct. 27112720159 L.Ed.2d 513
The Court takes judicial notice of the docket in USA v. Sylvester, 3:02-cr-00287-REP-1 (E.D. Va.) (J., Payne).
Generally the proper respondent for a § 2241 challenge to an inmate's immediate physical custody is the warden of the institution where the inmate is currently confined. However, as Sylvester is not challenging his present placement, but rather his potential future custody within the State of New York, the New York Attorney General would be the appropriate respondent. Id. at 435-36, 124 S.Ct. at 2718.
As Sylvester is lodged within our jurisdiction, but challenges a potential New York state detainer, we have concurrent jurisdiction with the Northern District of New York over this petition. Braden, supra, 410 U.S. at 499 n. 15, 93 S.Ct. at 1131 n. 15. However, since the records and witnesses relevant to the detainer are in the Northern District of New York, we will transfer the petition there pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Id. See also Davis v. Fox, No. 07-570, 2007 WL 4591243 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 27, 2007) (transferring 2241 petition in the interest of justice to district court with jurisdiction over the officials who issued the detainer); George v. United States, No. 07-110, 2007 WL 3405420, N.D. W. Va. Nov. 9, 2007) (same); Ross v. Sedgwick County District Attorney's Office, 2007 WL 1577791 (W.D. Okla. May 31, 2007) (dismissing a 2241 petition challenging a detainer without prejudice to filing in the federal court with jurisdiction over the official who issued the detainer).
An independent computerized legal search of the New York Unified Judicial Court System and Westlaw reveals that Sylvester has prior criminal convictions stemming from the following New York counties: Albany, Schnectedy and Chemung. Albany and Schnectedy, as well as the central office of the New York State Division of Parole, are all located in the Northern District of New York.
A court may transfer any civil action for the convenience of the parties or witnesses, or in the interest of justice, to any district where the action might have been brought.
We will issue an appropriate order.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 23rd day of July, 2008, for the reasons set forth in the accompanying memorandum, it is ordered that:
1. The Clerk of Court is directed to transfer this action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York.
2. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.