Opinion
Case No. CIV-18-1061-R
06-03-2019
GERARDO NARANJO-DELGADO, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.
ORDER
Petitioner, a federal prisoner appearing pro se, brings this habeas action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner challenges the Bureau of Prisons' calculation of his federal sentence. See Doc. 1; see also Doc. 25. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Gary M. Purcell for preliminary review. On May 2, 2019, Judge Purcell issued a Report and Recommendation, wherein he recommended that Petitioner's § 2241 petition be denied for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. See Doc. 24. Petitioner has timely objected, see Doc. 25, giving rise to the Court's obligation to review de novo the Report and Recommendation. Having conducted this review, the Court declines to adopt the Report and Recommendation and dismisses without prejudice the petition as moot.
"A petition brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 typically attacks the execution of a sentence rather than its validity and must be filed in the district where the prisoner is confined." Brace v. United States, 634 F.3d 1167, 1169 (10th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Petitioner is currently incarcerated at the Reeves County Detention Center in Pecos, Texas, a contracted correctional facility operated by the GEO Group, Inc. See Doc. 15; see also Doc. 26, at 1 n.1. But at the time he filed his petition, Petitioner was incarcerated at Great Plains Correctional Facility in Hinton, Oklahoma—also a contracted correctional facility operated by the GEO Group, Inc. See Docs. 1, 18. As "jurisdiction attaches on the initial filing for habeas corpus relief, and . . . is not destroyed by a transfer of the petitioner and the accompanying custodial change," Santillanes v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 754 F.2d 887, 888 (10th Cir. 1985), this Court retains jurisdiction over the petition despite Petitioner's transfer to a facility in Texas. Cf. Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 441 (2004) ("[W]hen the Government moves a habeas petitioner after []he properly files a petition naming h[is] immediate custodian, the District Court retains jurisdiction and may direct the writ to any respondent within its jurisdiction who has legal authority to effectuate the prisoner's release.").
Reeves County Detention Center is located within the territorial jurisdiction of the Western District of Texas.
Petitioner's transfer, however, does deprive the Court of power to grant Petitioner the relief he seeks. "District courts are limited to granting habeas relief 'within their respective jurisdictions.'" Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. at 442 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a)). For § 2241 petitions, this means that the district court must have jurisdiction "over the custodian." Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2243 ("The writ . . . shall be directed to the person having custody of the person detained."). As Petitioner is now incarcerated in Texas, this Oklahoma district court lacks jurisdiction over his Texas-based custodian and, thus, is powerless to effectuate any relief. See Berry v. Fox, 704 F. App'x 789, 790 (10th Cir. 2017) ("Although jurisdiction attaches under § 2241 where the inmate is confined when the petition is filed, the [Oklahoma] district court's order was undoubtedly correct that [petitioner's] transfer to state custody in Michigan rendered the court incapable of ordering effectual relief . . . ."); Griffin v. Kastner, 507 F. App'x 801, 802-03 (10th Cir. 2013) ("[The warden of the Federal Transfer Center in Oklahoma] no longer has custody of [petitioner] and is therefore powerless to provide any relief the district court might order. [Petitioner] is currently detained in Missouri, outside the district of confinement and therefore outside the scope of the district court's habeas jurisdiction. With no effectual relief possible, [the] petition is moot." (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); see also Gorbey v. Warden of Fed. Transfer Ctr., 580 F. App'x 682 (10th Cir. 2014) (affirming Western District of Oklahoma's dismissal of § 2241 petition where petitioner was transferred to Kentucky from Oklahoma after the filing of the petition). Thus, the petition is moot and should be dismissed without prejudice.
Accordingly, the Court declines to adopt Judge Purcell's Report and Recommendation and, instead, dismisses without prejudice this matter as it has become moot. Petitioner is free to refile this action in the proper judicial district, which—if Petitioner remains incarcerated at the Reeves County Detention Center—would be the Western District of Texas.
Petitioner will not be prejudiced by this dismissal because "[t]here is no statute of limitations for federal prisoners filing habeas petitions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241." Wooten v. Cauley, 677 F.3d 303, 306 (6th Cir. 2012) (citing Morales v. Bezy, 499 F.3d 668, 672 (7th Cir. 2007); see also Hartfield v. Quarterman, 603 F. Supp. 2d 943, 948 (S.D. Tex. 2009) (citing Day v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 198, 202 n.1 (2006)) ("[H]abeas petitions under § 2241 have no statute of limitations . . . ."). --------
IT IS SO ORDERED this 3rd day of June, 2019.
/s/ _________
DAVID L. RUSSELL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE