Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 04-1293
April 8, 2004
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Presently before the Court is a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner is currently confined in Nesquehoning, Pennsylvania. For the reasons which follow, the petition should be transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
DISCUSSION
The documents submitted by petitioner reflect that by decision dated September 5, 2003 (Petitioner's Ex. E), an Immigration Judge ordered the termination of removal proceedings on the ground that the Immigration Judge found that petitioner was a "national" of the United States. On September 10, 2003, the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") issued an Order (Petitioner's Ex. F) granting an application of the United States Department of Homeland Security requesting a stay of execution of the Immigration Judge's bond order of September 5, 2003, which had ordered respondent released on his own recognizance.
In a decision dated March 9, 2004 (Petitioner's Ex. H), the BIA found that petitioner's alienage had been established, and the BIA therefore vacated the Immigration Judge's September 5, 2003 decision which had terminated the removal proceedings. Accordingly, the BIA remanded the case to the Immigration Judge for further proceedings and the entry of a new decision. Petitioner initiated the present habeas proceedings to challenge the BIA's March 9, 2004 decision.
The statute governing jurisdiction over writs of habeas corpus provides that writs may be granted by "the district courts . . . within their respective jurisdictions." 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a). This provision has been interpreted to mean that, pursuant to § 2241, habeas relief may only be sought in the district court having jurisdiction over the petitioner's "custodian." See Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484 (1973); Billiteri v. United States Bd. of Parole, 541 F.2d 938, 948 (2d Cir. 1976) ("In order for a court to entertain a habeas action, it must have jurisdiction over the petitioner's custodian."); Beeman v. Pennsylvania, 1988 WL 13258, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 19, 1988). The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has held that "[i]t is the warden of the prison or the facility where the detainee is held that is considered the custodian for purposes of a habeas action."Yi v. Maugans, 24 F.3d 500, 507 (3d Cir. 1994) (holding that warden of INS facility where detainee was held was custodian for purposes of habeas action).
The Third Circuit in Yi v. Maugans further clarified that District Directors of the INS were not custodians, for purposes of habeas corpus actions, despite their power to release the detainees. See Yi, 24 F.3d at 507.
In the present case, petitioner is confined in Nesquehoning, Pennsylvania which is located in Carbon County. See, e.g., Lansford-Coaldale Joint Water Auth. v. Tonolli Corp., 4 F.3d 1209, 1213 (3d Cir. 1993) (acknowledging that Nesquehoning, Pennsylvania is in Carbon County); Lee v. Ametek, Inc., 1990 WL 45744, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 16, 1990) (same). Carbon County is not located within the jurisdictional boundaries of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, see 28 U.S.C. § 118(a), but instead, is located in the Middle District, see 28 U.S.C. § 118(b); see also Lee, 1990 WL 45744, at *1 (acknowledging that Carbon County is located in the Middle District of Pennsylvania). As such, the petition should be transferred to the Middle District of Pennsylvania. See Yi, 24 F.3d at 507 (warden of INS facility were custodians for purposes of habeas action and the fact that "the district director has the power to release the detainees does not alter our conclusion"); Valdivia v. INS, 80 F. Supp.2d 326, 333 (D. N.J. 2000) (following Third Circuit's holding in Yi, court transferred habeas petition to the district court having jurisdiction over the warden of the INS facility where petitioner was confined); Wang v. Reno, 862 F. Supp. 801, 812 (E.D. N.Y. 1994) (holding that the warden of the INS detention facility, not the INS district director, is the appropriate respondent for habeas purposes); see also Billiteri, 541 F.2d at 948 (dismissing habeas petition for lack of jurisdiction since petitioner failed to name warden of prison as respondent); Beeman, 1988 WL 13258, at *1 (transferring habeas case for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that court lacked jurisdiction over proper respondent, the
This Court's civil docket reflects that at the time petitioner filed a previous habeas petition (Ghafour Asemani v. Ridge, No. 03-4612), which was dismissed without prejudice on Oct. 29, 2003, petitioner had been confined at the Berks County Prison. However, between the time petitioner filed a second habeas petition (Asemani v. Ridge, No. 04-045), which was subsequently dismissed, and the time he filed a motion to withdraw his second petition, petitioner filed a Notice of Change of Address on Jan. 12, 2004 indictating that he had been transferred to the Carbon County correctional facility in Nesquehoning. In any event, at the time of the filing of the present petition, he was confined in Nesquehoning, Pennsylvania.
warden of the prison where petitioner was incarcerated).
It is also noted that the Immigration Court proceedings in petitioner's case are being held in York, Pennsylvania which lies in the Middle District of Pennsylvania, see 28 U.S.C. § 118(b); see, e.g., Idasetima v. Wabash Metal Prods., Inc., 2001 WL 1526270, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 29, 2001) (noting that York is located in the Middle District of Pennsylvania). Moreover, in the interest of justice, it would be more practical and equitable to transfer petitioner's application to the Middle District because of, among other things, the inconvenience of transferring petitioner from Carbon County to Philadelphia for any hearings. See, e.g., Gellock v. Freeman, 1987 WL 7208, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 27, 1987) (transferring § 2254 petition to district where petitioner and custodian were located); Yacoubian v. Petsock, 1986 WL 2564, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 25, 1986) (same). Accordingly, the habeas petition should be transferred to the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
My Recommendation follows.