Opinion
Civil Action No. 10-1384 (RWR).
August 31, 2010
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on initial consideration of petitioner's pro se Petition for Emergency Writ of Habeas Corpus. The petition will be denied.
Petitioner alleges that, "[o]n or about July 18, 2010, Janet for the Family Beddini's liberties commenced to be restrained and is on going to this day[] by RESPONDENT, who is or represents a `CORPORATION for Profit", holding a natural woman . . . against Her will, over Her objection, and without Her consent[.]" Pet. ¶ 2 (capitalization in original). Petitioner demands the prisoner's immediate release from custody. See id. at 4.
"Three inter-related judicial doctrines — standing, mootness, and ripeness, ensure that federal courts assert jurisdiction only over `Cases' and `Controversies.'" Worth v. Jackson, 451 F.3d 854, 855 (D.C. Cir. 2006). A party has standing if his claims "spring from an `injury in fact' — an invasion of a legally protected interest that is `concrete and particularized,' `actual or imminent' and `fairly traceable' to the challenged act of the defendant, and likely to be redressed by a favorable decision in the federal court." Navegar, Inc. v. United States, 103 F.3d 994, 998 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (quoting Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992)). "[T]he injury alleged cannot be conjectural or hypothetical, remote, speculative, or abstract." Nat'l Treasury Employees Union v. United States, 101 F.3d 1423, 1427 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Here, petitioner articulates no legally protected interest of his own; rather, he purports to bring this action on another person's behalf. Although he may represent himself as a pro se litigant, petitioner is a lay person who is not qualified tor represent another person in this Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1654; Georgiades v. Martin-Trigona, 729 F.2d 831, 834 (D.C. Cir. 1984). Standing may be denied where, as here, this pro se litigant seeks to assert the rights of a third party. See Navegar, Inc., 103 F.3d at 998.
Even if petitioner had standing to bring this action, this Court cannot entertain a challenge to the legality of the prisoner's custody. Habeas actions are subject to jurisdictional and statutory limitations. See Braden v. 30th Judicial Cir. Ct. of Ky., 410 U.S. 484 (1973). The proper respondent in a habeas corpus action is the warden. Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 434-35 (2004); Blair-Bey v. Quick, 151 F.3d 1036, 1039 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (citing Chatman-Bey v. Thornburgh, 864 F.2d 804, 810 (D.C. Cir. 1988)), who is identified as Paul J. VanBlarcum, Sheriff of Ulster County, New York. "[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).
An Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
Signed this 31st day of August, 2010.