Vinansky v. Caraway

Full title: JOSEPH VINANSKY v. J.F. CARAWAY

Court: United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

Date published: Apr 4, 2011

Civil No. 11-334 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 4, 2011)

Opinion

Civil No. 11-334.

April 4, 2011

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER OF COURT

GUSTAVE DIAMOND, Senior District Judge

Presently before the court is a pro se Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 filed by Joseph Vinansky ("petitioner"). Because petitioner is not confined at an institution in this district, his § 2241 motion will be denied.

On July 21, 2004, petitioner appeared before the court for sentencing pursuant to his guilty plea to a one-count indictment at Criminal No. 03-236 charging him with access device fraud and a one-count information at Criminal No. 04-81 charging him with mail fraud. Defendant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 50 months at each count, to be served concurrently, to be followed by a term of supervised release of 3 years at each count, to be served concurrently.

On December 16, 2009, petitioner appeared before the court for a supervised release revocation hearing pursuant to a petition on supervised release. Upon the court's finding that petitioner violated the conditions of his release, supervised release was revoked and petitioner was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 21 months, which he currently is serving at FCI-Cumberland.

On March 15, 2011, petitioner filed the pending § 2241 petition alleging that he has received threats from other inmates at FCI-Cumberland due to his testimony in a murder case. For his own safety, he requests that his sentence be modified to permit him to serve the remainder of his term of incarceration at a halfway house or in home confinement.

A § 2241 petition must be brought in the district where the prisoner is confined. Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 442-47 (2004). Here, petitioner is incarcerated at FCI-Cumberland, which is located in Cumberland, Maryland. Accordingly, jurisdiction over petitioner's § 2241 claim lies in the District of Maryland where he is confined. Because this court lacks jurisdiction to consider the motion, petitioner's request for relief under § 2241 must be dismissed without prejudice. See United States v. Smith, 355 Fed. Appx. 656, 658 (3d Cir. 2009).

An appropriate order will follow.

ORDER

AND NOW, this 4^th day of April, 2011, for the reasons set forth in the memorandum above, IT IS ORDERED that petitioner's pro se petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Document No. 1), be, and the same hereby is, dismissed without prejudice.