Opinion
CIV-22-152-PRW
06-10-2022
THOMAS CAVAZOS, Petitioner, v. FNU MACHALT, Respondent.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
SHON T. ERWIN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Thomas Cavazos, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 6). United States District Judge Patrick R. Wyrick has referred this matter to the undersigned magistrate judge for initial proceedings consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)-(C). Respondent has filed a Motion to Transfer, and Petitioner has not responded. (ECF No. 22). The Court should GRANT Respondent's Motion and TRANSFER the Petition to the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
I. BACKGROUND
On January 25, 2022, while confined at FCI-El Reno, in El Reno, Oklahoma, Petitioner filed a habeas Petition in the Northern District of Texas requesting “jail time credit for time served in custody prior to sentencing.” (ECF No. 1). On February 16, 2022, Mr. Cavazos filed an Amended Petition, making the same argument, but utilizing a form petition. See ECF No. 6. On February 8, 2022, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas transferred the case to this Court, stating that jurisdiction was proper here, based on the fact that Mr. Cavazos was incarcerated in El Reno, Oklahoma, which in in this Court's jurisdiction. See ECF No. 8. Currently, Petitioner is incarcerated in USP Lewisburg, located in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania.
See Inmate Locator, https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc// (last visited May 31, 2022); see also ECF No. 22-1.
II. RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO TRANSFER
Respondent has challenged the Court's jurisdiction, arguing that the Petition should be transferred to the Middle District of Pennsylvania because Plaintiff's transfer to that district deprives this Court of jurisdiction. The Court should grant the Motion and transfer the case to the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
As stated, Petitioner is a federal inmate currently incarcerated at USP Lewisburg, in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania. See supra. USP Lewisburg is located in Union County, Pennsylvania, which is located within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. 28 U.S.C. § 118(b). Because Petitioner is incarcerated in the Middle District of Pennsylvania, this court lacks jurisdiction over his custodian, and jurisdiction over this action exists solely in that court. See Haugh v. Booker, 210 F.3d 1147, 1149 (10th Cir. 2000) ('“A petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 attacks the execution of a sentence rather than its validity and must be filed in the district where the prisoner is confined.”); Griggs v. United States, 79 Fed.Appx. 359, 363 (10th Cir. 2003) ("[B]ecause plaintiff is currently confined at the FMC in Fort Worth, Texas, we [ ] conclude that plaintiff was required to file his [§ 2241] petition in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, and that the Oklahoma district court therefore did not have jurisdiction to decide plaintiff's petition[.]”) (internal citation omitted).
“District courts are limited to granting habeas relief 'within their respective jurisdictions. See Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 442 (2004) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a)). For § 2241 petitions, this requires that the district court have jurisdiction “over the custodian.” Id. (quotation omitted). Because this Court lacks jurisdiction over a custodian in Pennsylvania, this Court is powerless to effectuate any relief under § 2241. Griffin v. Kastner, 507 Fed.Appx. at 803; see also, Berry v. Fox, 704 Fed.Appx. 789, 790 (10th Cir. 2017); Gorbey v. Warden, F.T.C., No. CIV-14-0163-HE, 2014 WL 2548105, at *1-2 (W.D. Okla. Jun. 5, 2014), aff'd sub nom. Gorbey v. Warden of Fed. Transfer Ctr., 580 Fed.Appx. 682 (10th Cir. 2014).
“Jurisdictional defects that arise when a suit is filed in the wrong federal district may be cured by transfer under the federal transfer statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1631, which requires a court to transfer such an action if the transfer is in the interest of justice.” Haugh, 210 F.3d at 1150 (internal citation omitted). To determine whether a transfer would be in the interest of justice, the Court may take “a peek at the merits” to avoid raising false hopes and wasting judicial resources that would result from transferring a case which is clearly doomed. Id. In the instant case, Mr. Cavazos alleges an error in computation of his sentence. Specifically, Petitioner believes the Bureau of Prisons has failed to properly give him credit for time he was confined in pretrial detention prior to commencement of his federal sentence. See ECF No. 6. At this juncture, the Court does not have enough information to determine the potential merit of Mr. Cavazos' allegations. That determination must be made by the Middle District of Pennsylvania in the first instance, following the Court's transfer of the Amended Petition.
III. RECOMMENDATION AND NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT
Based upon the foregoing analysis, it is recommended that the Court TRANSFER the Amended Petition (ECF No. 6) to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
The Petitioner is advised of his right to file an objection to this Report and Recommendation with the Clerk of this Court by June 27, 2022, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72. The Petitioner is further advised that failure to make timely objection to this Report and Recommendation waives the right to appellate review of both factual and legal issues contained herein. Casanova v. Ulibarri, 595 F.3d 1120, 1123 (10th Cir. 2010).
IV. STATUS OF REFERRAL
This Report and Recommendation terminates the referral by the District Judge in this matter.