Opinion
Civil Action No. 17-2786 (UNA)
02-12-2018
Reginald I. Bailey a.k.a. Ray Hill, Petitioner, v. United States of America et al., Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Petitioner is a Texas state prisoner who is incarcerated in Huntsville, Texas. Appearing pro se, petitioner has filed a barely legible document docketed as a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus [Dkt. # 1], and an application to proceed in forma pauperis. The application will be granted and this case will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
To the extent that petitioner is challenging his custody, he must proceed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 against his immediate custodian in Texas, see Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 439 (2004); Blair-Bey v. Quick, 151 F.3d 1036, 1039 (D.C. Cir. 1998), and 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). See Day v. Trump, 860 F.3d 686, 691 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (affirming dismissal for want of jurisdiction where the District of Columbia was not "the district of residence of [petitioner's] immediate custodian for purposes of § 2241 habeas relief").
To the extent that petitioner is challenging his Texas conviction, he must proceed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which requires that he first exhaust his available state remedies. See id. §2254(b)(1). Thereafter, an application under § 2254 "may be filed in the district court for the district wherein such person is in custody or in the district court for the district [where] the State court was held which convicted and sentenced [petitioner][,] and each of such district courts shall have concurrent jurisdiction to entertain the application." 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). Petitioner simply has no recourse in this Court. A separate order of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion. Date: February 12, 2018
/s/_________
United States District Judge