Opinion
NO. 2:06CV00013 BD.
February 26, 2007
ORDER
Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus (#1) under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 with this Court while confined at the Federal Correctional Complex — Medium Security institution in Forrest City, Arkansas ("FCI-FC"). In his petition, Petitioner complains that the State of Louisiana inappropriately filed a detainer and warrant for a parole violation with FCI-FC, denying him eligibility for a half-way house placement. Petitioner requests that "the restraints upon my liberty be removed which is improvidently lodged upon me in the form of a parole violator warrant." For the reasons set forth below, Petitioner's claim is DISMISSED without prejudice.
I. Background:
At the time the petition was filed, Petitioner was confined in FCI-FC which is within the Eastern District of Arkansas. Petitioner was released from FCI-FC on August 25, 2006. Correspondence from the Court to Petitioner (#10) has been returned as "Undeliverable" (# 12), with a notation that FCI-FC is unable to identify the inmate. Petitioner has not notified the Court of a new address. However, Louisiana Department of Correction Officials indicate Petitioner is currently confined at the J. Levy Dabadie Correction Center in Pineville, Louisiana.
II. Analysis:
Title 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a) provides that a writ of habeas corpus "may be granted by . . . the district courts . . . within their respective jurisdictions." Title 28 U.S.C. § 2243 further provides that "the writ, or order to show cause shall be directed to the person having custody of the person detained." Following these statutes, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 543 U.S. 426, 447, 124 S.Ct. 2711, 2722, 159 L.Ed.2d 513 (2004) that a federal prisoner's § 2241 petition challenging his present physical confinement must name his warden as respondent and must be filed in the district of confinement because only a court located in the district of confinement has personal jurisdiction over the prisoner's custodian. See also Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court, 410 U.S. 484, 495, 93 S.Ct. 123, 35 L.Ed.2d 443 (1973) (holding that jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 lies in the district where a custodian responsible for the confinement is present); Propotnikv. Putnam, 538 F.2d 806, 807 (8th Cir. 1976) (affirming a district court's order dismissing a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 because the petitioner was confined in another judicial district). The custodian is the person with "the ability to produce the prisoner's body before the habeas court." Id. at 435.
At the time the Petition was filed, Petitioner was confined in the Eastern District of Arkansas, and the Respondent was his warden. However, Petitioner was released from FCI-FC in August, 2006, and Respondent is no longer the custodian responsible for Petitioner's confinement. Petitioner is physically confined in another state and another district. Therefore, this Court no longer has jurisdiction and the case must be dismissed without prejudice.
Petitioner has also failed to keep the Court informed of his current address as required by Local Rule 5.5(c)(2) of the Eastern District of Arkansas, as evidenced by the return of the Court's December 29, 2006 Order as "Undeliverable" (#12).
Further, even if this Court had jurisdiction, Petitioner's request for relief is moot. Petitioner seeks relief from the Louisiana detainer in order to be eligible for placement in a half-way house or an order to prevent his being detained upon completion of his federal sentence. Either way, the Court cannot order the relief Petitioner requests because he has already been released from FCI-FC. Poulton v. Sanders, 2007 WL 141127 at *2 (E.D. Ark. January 16, 2007) (dismissing as moot a habeas petition challenging a Texas detainer which petitioner claimed was preventing him from being considered for half-way house placement when petitioner had been released). Petitioner cannot show that he has suffered or is going to suffer an injury that can be redressed by this Court and his petition is, therefore, moot.
III. Conclusion:
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus (#1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.