Erica D. Haywood v. Unnamed
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se prisoner's letter seeking release from a California jail, determining that the Northern District of Georgia lacked proper venue and jurisdiction. The court recommended transferring the action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Transfer of action to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California“IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Court TRANSFER this action to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California for further proceedings.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for habeas relief lie in the district of confinement (Southern District of California). The application of 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) to transfer the case in the interest of justice is appropriate for a pro se litigant filing in the wrong district. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the venue statute for § 1983 claims and the jurisdictional requirements for habeas corpus petitions. It accurately cites binding Supreme Court and Circuit authority regarding the district of confinement requirement. The decision to transfer rather than dismiss is consistent with the 'interest of justice' standard for pro se litigants.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
inconsistent with cited authorityOpinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION ERICA D. HAYWOOD, : PRISONER CIVIL RIGHTS Plaintiff, : 42 U.S.C. § 1983 V. UNNAMED, ; CIVIL ACTION NO. Defendant. i 1:18-CV-2084-TWT-LTW FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Plaintiff is confined at the Las Colinas Detention and Re-Entry Facility in Santee, California (the “Jail”). (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff, pro se, sent the Court a letter complaining of her confinement there. (/d.) Plaintiff“feel[s] very uncomfortable and unsafe at this facility due to abuse by jailers and healthcare staff’ and seeks “immediate lawful release.” (/d. at 1-2.) Plaintiff's letter is liberally construed as seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. But this Court is not the proper venue for Plaintiff's complaint. An action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 may, except as otherwise provided by law, be brought only in (1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same State, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated, or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant may be found, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought.
28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Plaintiff's complaint concerns only her confinement at the Jail, which is within the jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. Venue is not proper in this Court. Moreover, to the extent Plaintiff seeks relief under the federal habeas corpus laws, given her request for release from confinement, she cannot obtain such relief here because this Court does not have jurisdiction over her custodian. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (a)-(b); Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 444-47 (2004) (“Whenever a § 2241 habeas petitioner seeks to challenge his present physical custody within the United States, he should name his warden as respondent and file the petition in the district of confinement.”). “Section 2241 [habeas] petitions may be brought only in the district court for the district in which the inmate is incarcerated.” Fernandez v. United States, 941 F.2d 1488, 1495 (11th Cir. 1991). A district court must transfer a case filed in the wrong court to a court in which venue is proper “if it be in the interest of justice.” 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and does not appear to know the venue laws, it is in the interest of justice to transfer this case.
Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Court TRANSFER this action to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California for further proceedings. SO RECOMMENDED this (7 day of Af Ude) 2018.
Cdl WE Lf LON MMA) KL; NDA JT. WALKER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE