Opinion
CIV-23-1189-HE
02-09-2024
JOHN HERBERT STRAND, Petitioner, v. FNU WARDEN, FTC Oklahoma City, Respondent.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
SUZANNE MITCHELL, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
John Herbert Strand, a federal inmate housed at the Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) Oakdale I in Oakdale, Louisiana, has filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for writ of habeas corpus. Doc.1. United States District Judge Joe Heaton referred the matter to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for initial proceedings consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), (C). Doc. 4. Because this Court can grant no relief to Petitioner, the undersigned recommends the Court dismiss the petition without prejudice as moot.
The undersigned takes judicial notice of the Federal Bureau of Prisons' inmate database. See https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ (last visited Feb. 7, 2024); see also United States v. Pursley, 577 F.3d 1204, 1214 n.6 (10th Cir. 2009) (exercising discretion “to take judicial notice of publicly-filed records in [this] court and certain other courts concerning matters that bear directly upon the disposition of the case at hand”).
Citations to a court document are to its electronic case filing designation and pagination. Except for capitalization, quotations are verbatim unless otherwise indicated.
I. Background.
A jury in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia convicted Petitioner of Obstruction of an Official Proceeding and Aiding and Abetting (Count 1), Entering and Remaining in a Restricted Building or Grounds (Count 2), Disorderly or Disruptive Conduct in a Restricted Building (Count 3), Disorderly Conduct in a Capitol Building (Count 4), and Parading, Demonstrating, or Picketing in a Capitol Building (Count 5). See United States v. Strand, No. 21-CR-85-CRC, Doc. 108 (D.D.C. Sept. 27, 2022). United States District Judge Christopher R. Cooper sentenced Petitioner to a total of thirty-two months' imprisonment and thirty-six months of supervised release. Id. Docs. 134, 140. Petitioner is appealing his judgment and sentence. United States v. Strand, No. 23-3083 (D.C. Cir. 2023).
Petitioner, through an “authorized representative,” now petitions this Court under § 2241 concerning his incarceration at “FCI Miami.” Doc. 1, at 35. In Ground One, Petitioner alleges that he is “being denied his United States Constitutional Rights to receive mail in prison, in violation of his First Amendment rights and the Geneva Convention.” Id. at 8. In Ground Two, he asserts he is “being denied his United States Constitutional Rights to receive visits from friends and loved ones, in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights against cruel and unusual punishment.” Id. In Ground Three, Petitioner alleges he is “being denied his United States Constitutional Rights to receive visits from his attorney(s), in violation of his Sixth Amendment rights.” Id. at 9. And in his Fourth Ground for relief, he alleges he “has been held for months in solitary confinement for no legitimate reason and without cause, contrary to his Eighth Amendment rights against cruel and unusual punishment.” Id.
Mr. Strand did not sign the petition. See Doc. 1, at 10. Instead, “Dr. Simone Gold” submitted and signed the petition as Mr. Strand's “authorized representative.” Id. On the envelope Ms. Gold mailed to this Court from Naples, Florida, she has written “Attorney Gold” as the sender. Doc. 1 (envelope). But the Court's records do not show that Ms. Gold is an attorney admitted to practice in this Court. The court records from Petitioner's criminal case in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia indicate Ms. Gold was a co-defendant in the matter. See Strand, No. 21-CR-85, Doc. 13.
Petitioner requests that he be “immediately” released “into general population at the minimum security prison camp Pensacola,” that the “visits and calls by his immediate family members,” “his attorneys,” and “all individuals who have submitted documentation requesting visits” be approved, and that all of his mail be timely provided to him and all of his outgoing mail be sent to “authorized friends and family.” Id. at 10.
To the extent Petitioner challenges his conditions of confinement as opposed to the execution of his sentence, he must bring those challenges in a Bivens action. See, e.g., Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971); see also Palma-Salazar v. Davis, 677 F.3d 1031, 1038-39 (10th Cir. 2012) (“[B]ecause [petitioner] seeks a change in the place of his confinement, his claims are properly construed as a challenge to the conditions of his confinement and must be brought pursuant to Bivens.”).
II. Screening.
This Court must review a habeas petition and dismiss it “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts; see also Garza v. Davis, 596 F.3d 1198, 1205 (10th Cir. 2010) (holding a federal court possesses “the discretion either to dismiss the § 2241 petition if it appear[s] that the petitioner was not entitled to relief or to order the respondent to file a response”).
The Court may apply the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases to habeas petitions arising under § 2241. See Rule 1(b); Whitmore v. Parker, 484 Fed.Appx. 227, 231 n.2 (10th Cir. 2012) (citing Boutwell v. Keating, 399 F.3d 1203, 1211 n.2 (10th Cir. 2005) as holding that: “The District Court . . . acted within its discretion by applying the Section 2254 Rules to this § 2241 petition.”).
III. Discussion.
A § 2241 petition must be filed in the district where the prisoner is confined. Brace v. United States, 634 F.3d 1167, 1169 (10th Cir. 2011). Petitioner states in his petition that his place of confinement is “FTC Oklahoma City.” Doc. 1, at 6. But, while Petitioner may have transited through FTC Oklahoma City, records show he is no longer confined in this district. See supra p. 1 & n.1. Instead, he is currently housed at FCI Oakdale I, a “low security” facility in Oakdale, Louisiana. See https://www.bop.gov/locations/institutions/oak/ (last visited Feb. 7, 2024).
“FTC” is the Federal Transfer Center.
Petitioner's representative states in the petition that Petitioner “was suddenly moved from FCI Miami to FTC Oklahoma City and we believe he continues to be in isolation.” Doc. 1, at 5.
“[J]urisdiction attaches on the initial filing for habeas corpus relief, and it 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); cf. Rumsfield v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 442 (2004). So the Court retains jurisdiction over the petition despite Petitioner's transfer to Louisiana. Santillanes, 754 F.2d at 888. That said, the warden of FTC Oklahoma City is no longer Petitioner's custodian. So the warden is now “powerless to provide any relief this Court might order.” Griffin v. Kastner, 507 Fed.Appx. 801, 802 (10th Cir. 2013).
“District courts are limited to granting habeas relief ‘within their respective jurisdictions.'” Padilla, 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.'” Naranjo-Delgado v. United States, No. CIV-18-1061-R, 2019 WL 2342689, at *1 (W.D. Okla. June 3, 2019) (quoting Padilla, 542 U.S. at 442). But because Petitioner is now incarcerated in Louisiana, this Court lacks jurisdiction over Petitioner's current custodian and can provide no relief to Petitioner. See, e.g., Griffin, 507 Fed.Appx. at 802 (“Mr. Griffin is currently detained in Missouri, outside the ‘district of confinement' and therefore outside the scope of the district court's habeas jurisdiction.”). So, “[w]ith no effectual relief possible, [Petitioner's] petition is moot” and the Court should dismiss it. Griffin, 507 Fed.Appx. at 802-03 (internal citation omitted).
IV. Recommendation and right to object.
Because Petitioner's petition is moot, the undersigned recommends the Court dismiss it without prejudice. See Naranjo-Delgado, 2019 WL 2342689, at *2 (dismissing moot § 2241 petition without prejudice). Petitioner is free to refile this action in the proper judicial district, which is the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. See id. (notifying petitioner that he was free to refile in the proper judicial district).
The undersigned advises Petitioner of his right to file an objection to this Report and Recommendation with the Clerk of Court on or before March 1, 2024, under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2). The undersigned further advises Petitioner that failure to file a timely objection to this Report and Recommendation waives his right to appellate review of both factual and legal issues contained herein. See Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991).
This Report and Recommendation disposes of all issues and terminates the referral to the undersigned Magistrate Judge in the captioned matter.