Opinion
02 Civ. 8664 (SAS).
June 23, 2003.
Joseph Santulli, FMC Springfield, Springfield, MO, Attorney for Petitioner (Pro Se).
Sharon L. McCarthy, Assistant United States Attorney, United States Attorney's Office, New York, NY, Attorney for Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Joseph Santulli petitions this Court for a writ of habeas corpus ostensibly pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See Petitioner's Motion to Vacate ("Pet. Motion"). Although it is not clear from the petition what Santulli asserts or requests, it appears that he seeks three remedies: (1) dismissal of a 1994 assault charge; (2) release from solitary confinement; and (3) release from all confinement. See In re the Matter of Joseph Santulli, No. 02 Civ. 348 (E.D. Ky. July 26, 2002) ("In re Santulli"), Ex. H to 3/21/03 Affirmation of Assistant U.S. Attorney Sharon McCarthy ("McCarthy Aff."), at 4-5. For the reasons that follow, the petition is denied as moot.
I. BACKGROUND
Santulli was charged in New York with assault on a federal officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 111 on November 21, 1994. See Respondent's Memorandum in Opposition to Petition ("Resp. Mem.") at 2. After the arrest, it became apparent that Santulli suffered from a mental problem. As a result, a mental evaluation was ordered. See id.
On December 27, 1995, Santulli and the Government entered into a Deferred Prosecution Agreement ("Agreement"). See Agreement, Ex. B to McCarthy Aff., at 1. The Government agreed to defer prosecution if Santulli voluntarily committed himself to a mental health facility for sixty days and upon release, attended an out-patient mental health treatment program. See id. However, on July 10, 1996, Santulli breached the Agreement by absconding from the facility and was arrested. See id. at 3. Santulli was charged with assault on August 22, 1996, and indicted on October 24, 1996. See Information, Ex. C to McCarthy Aff., at 1; Indictment, Ex. D to McCarthy Aff., at 1.
On February 10, 1997, this Court ordered a psychiatric examination of Santulli, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d), and held a competency hearing on June 17, 1997. See Order for Psychiatric Examination, Ex. E to McCarthy Aff., at 1. On August 7, 1997, having found that Santulli suffered from a mental disease or defect as a result of which his release would create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person or serious damage to the property of another, this Court conditionally committed Santulli to the custody of the U.S. Attorney General, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4246, if the director of the Federal Medical Center in Kentucky, to which Santulli was being transferred, filed a Certificate of Dangerousness within forty-five days. See Order of Commitment, Ex. F to McCarthy Aff., at 1.
On August 22, 1997, the Government filed a nolle prosequi in this Court, dismissing the charge against Santulli in the August 22, 1996 Information, and the Indictment of October 24, 1996.See Nolle Prosequi, Ex. G to McCarthy Aff., at 1. Pursuant to this Court's order on August 7, 1997, Santulli was examined at the Federal Medical Center in Kentucky and diagnosed with schizophrenia. See In re Santulli at 2-3. The Certificate of Dangerousness was filed, and on the Government's petition of December 10, 1997, the Eastern District Court of Kentucky committed Santulli to the custody of the U.S. Attorney General for continued hospitalization and treatment pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4646(d) until it could be certified that Santulli was no longer dangerous. See id. at 3.
On August 20, 2001, the District Court of Kentucky granted Santulli's motion for conditional release into the custody of the U.S. Probation Office to reside in New York. See id. Santulli breached the terms of his release and was arrested on December 6, 2001. See id. at 4. On January 4, 2002, the District Court of Kentucky revoked Santulli's conditional release order and remanded Santulli to the custody of the U.S. Attorney General for hospitalization until a suitable state placement could be made. See id. On October 30, 2002, Santulli, appearing pro se, filed a petition for habeas corpus in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in which he seeks relief from his 1994 assault charge and his current conditions of confinement. See Pet. Motion; In re Santulli at 4-5. Santulli filed the petition while held at the Federal Medical Center in Springfield, Missouri, where he is presently confined.See id.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Because Santulli files the instant application pro se, this Court will liberally construe his petition in order to consider any possible avenue of relief. See Chambers v. United States, 106 F.3d 472, 475 (2d Cir. 1997). Accordingly, Santulli's petition is viewed as a motion pursuant to either 28 U.S.C. § 2255 or 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Section 2255 allows a convicted person held in federal custody to petition the sentencing court to "vacate, set aside or correct" a conviction or sentence "imposed in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2255. A petition under this provision is properly brought when a prisoner seeks to challenge the legality of the imposition of sentence by a court in the district in which the sentence was imposed. See Roccisano v. Menifee, 293 F.3d 51, 57 (2d Cir. 2002).
In contrast, section 2241 allows a person "in custody under or by color of the authority of the United States" to challenge the execution of a sentence, such as the length, appropriateness or conditions of confinement. 28 U.S.C. § 2241; see also Kingsley v. Bureau of Prisons, 937 F.2d 26, 30 (2d Cir. 1991). Habeas relief under this provision is not limited to post-conviction relief; it is applicable to various other contexts, such as challenges to immigration detentions and civil commitment to mental institutions. See Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 699 (2001); Copley v. Keohane, 150 F.3d 827, 829 (8th Cir. 1998). A petition under this provision must be filed in the district of confinement. See Tejeda v. Reno, No. 00 Civ. 6338, 2000 WL 1280969, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 11, 2000) (citing Billiteri v. United States Bd. of Parole, 541 F.2d 938, 948 (2d Cir. 1976)). A section 2241 petition may also be heard by a court that has jurisdiction over the petitioner's custodian. See Henderson v. INS, 157 F.3d 106, 122 (2d Cir. 1998) (quoting Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Ct. of Ky., 410 U.S. 484, 494-95 (1973)). The custodian for the purposes of habeas corpus is generally the person who has day-to-day control of the petitioner and is usually located where the petitioner is confined. See Kendall v. INS, No. 02 Civ. 9590, 2003 WL 1992419, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. May 1, 2003) (quoting Billiteri, 541 F.2d at 948 (finding warden of facility where petitioner is confined is "custodian" of petitioner "who is under the control of [the] warden and confined [in a facility], and who is seeking, in a habeas corpus action, to be released from precisely that form of confinement")).
III. DISCUSSION
To the extent that Santulli requests relief under section 2255, his application is moot because no conviction or sentence resulted from the assault with which he was charged on August 22, 1996, and indicted on October 24, 1996. On August 22, 1997, the Government filed a nolle prosequi with this Court, dismissing the charge against Santulli. See Nolle Prosequi. Accordingly, his motion under section 2255 is dismissed as moot.
To the extent that his petition may be construed as a section 2241 writ challenging the conditions of civil commitment, this Court lacks jurisdiction to grant Santulli relief because he is located outside this district at the Federal Medical Center in Springfield, Missouri. Santulli's custodian, presumably the warden of the facility, is also located in Missouri, outside this Court's jurisdiction. A petition under section 2241 may properly be heard in the Western District of Missouri, the district in which Santulli and his custodian may be found. See Tejeda, 2000 WL 1280969, at *1 (citing Billiteri, 541 F.2d at 948); Henderson, 157 F.3d at 122. Santulli's petition has been transferred to the Western District of Missouri for consideration under section 2241. See In re Santulli at 4.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ordered that Joseph Santulli's petition for habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is dismissed as moot. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this motion and this case.
SO ORDERED.