Opinion
Civil Action 23-2740 (UNA)
09-26-2023
DAVID BRIAN MORGAN, Petitioner, v. JOE BIDEN, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
DABNEY L. FRIEDRICH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter is before the Court on consideration of David Brian Morgan's application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) and pro se Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (ECF No. 1, “Pet.”). Generally, Morgan challenges his conviction and sentence, see Pet. at 2 (page numbers designated by CM/ECF), and among other relief, he demands that his conviction be vacated immediately, see id. at 5. The Court will grant the application and dismiss the petition.
Only Morgan signed the petition and submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Although the names of dozens of prisoners appear in the petition, see Pet. at 12, the Court proceeds with Morgan is the sole petitioner.
A federal court may issue a writ of habeas corpus if a petitioner “is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). A habeas action is subject to jurisdictional and statutory limitations. See generally Braden v. 30th Judicial Cir. Ct. of Ky., 410 U.S. 484 (1973). The proper respondent in a habeas corpus action is the petitioner's custodian, 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)), whom Morgan has not named as the respondent. And this “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), and Morgan is in custody in Oklahoma. If habeas relief is available to Morgan, he “should name his [custodian] as respondent and file the petition in the district of [his] confinement.” Evans v. U.S. Marshals Serv., 177 F.Supp.3d 177, 182 (D.D.C. 2016) (quoting Padilla, 542 U.S. at 447); see Ardaneh v. United States Gov't, 848 Fed.Appx. 7, 8 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (affirming district court's remand in part to Massachusetts court and dismissal in part “to the extent appellant seeks release from confinement [because] the district . . . lacked jurisdiction over appellant's custodian”).
The Court notes that Morgan has challenged his State conviction - wholly without success - in the federal courts over the years. See, e.g., Morgan v. United States, No. 22-cv-1060 (D.D.C. May 6, 2022) (remarking that Morgan “has run the habeas gamut in the Western District of Oklahoma”); Morgan v. Oklahoma, No. 19-cv-0482-R, 2019 WL 3210600, at *2 (W.D. Okla. May 29, 2019) (describing Morgan's challenges, “under many guises, in this Court”), report and recommendation adopted, No. 19-cv-0482-R, 2019 WL 3208650 (W.D. Okla. July 16, 2019); Morgan v. Bear, No. 17-cv-797-R, 2018 WL 2210449, at *1 (W.D. Okla. Apr. 13, 2018) (recounting Morgan's litigation history and noting that § 2254 claims in prior case had been dismissed “as unauthorized and second or successive”), report and recommendation adopted, No. 17-cv-797-R, 2018 WL 2209526 (W.D. Okla. May 14, 2018).
An Order is issued separately.