Opinion
No. C09-0091-LRR.
July 21, 2009
ORDER
This matter appears before the court on the petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (docket no. 1). The petitioner submitted such application on July 9, 2009.
The petitioner never paid the statutory filing fee, see 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) (requiring $5.00), and he did not submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (explaining requirements that must be met for the court to confer in forma pauperis status). Moreover, "whenever [an application for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241] seeks to challenge [a petitioner's] present physical custody within the United States, he [or she] should name his [or her] warden as respondent and file the [application for a writ of habeas corpus] in the district of confinement." Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 447, 124 S. Ct. 2711, 159 L. Ed. 2d 513 (2004) (citation omitted); see also Stokes v. United States Parole Comm'n, 374 F.3d 1235, 1237-38 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (concluding that the only proper respondent was the petitioner's "immediate custodian," that is, the warden of the facility in which he was incarcerated).
Based on the foregoing, the petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is dismissed without prejudice. For the purpose of making a record, the clerk's office is directed to file the petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus.