Anzaldi v. Quintant ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                             UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
    _________________________________________
    )
    SHARON ANZALDI,                           )
    )
    Petitioner,                         )
    )
    v.                           )                   Civil Action No. 14-0658 (ESH)
    )
    FRANCISCO QUINTANT,                       )
    )
    Respondent.                         )
    _________________________________________ )
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Sharon Anzaldi’s petition for a writ of
    habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Pet. for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Apr. 14, 2014 [ECF
    No. 1].) Petitioner is presently in federal custody at the Federal Medical Center (“FMC”) in
    Lexington, Kentucky, pursuant to a judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern
    District of Illinois. (Pet. at 1; see also Judgment, United States v. Anzaldi, No. 1:11-cr-00820-1,
    Jan. 15, 2014.) She names the warden of FMC Lexington as the respondent to her petition.
    A habeas petition under § 2241 must be filed in the federal court with territorial
    jurisdiction over petitioner’s immediate custodian. Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 
    542 U.S. 426
    , 439, 124
    (2004). FMC Lexington and its warden are located within the territorial jurisdiction of the
    United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. See Federal Bureau of Prisons,
    FMC Lexington, http://www.bop.gov/locations/institutions/lex/ (last visited April 24, 2014)
    (identifying Eastern District of Kentucky as the judicial district encompassing FMC Lexington).
    Thus, this Court lacks jurisdiction over petitioner’s habeas petition.
    A court shall transfer a habeas petition to a court with proper territorial jurisdiction when
    such transfer is “in the interests of justice.” 28 U.S.C. § 1631; see, e.g., Bailey v. Fulwood, 
    780 F. Supp. 2d 20
    , 26-27 (D.D.C. 2011). As a transfer would avoid the inefficiency of dismissing
    this action and requiring petitioner to refile it, the Court finds it in the interest of justice to
    transfer this action to the proper court. See Stern v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 
    601 F. Supp. 2d 303
    ,
    306–07 (D.D.C. 2009) (a transfer is in the interest of justice where “it would be time-consuming
    and potentially costly” for a petitioner to refile his petition in the proper court).
    Accordingly, the above-captioned case will be transferred to the United States District
    Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum
    Opinion.
    /s/
    ELLEN SEGAL HUVELLE
    United States District Judge
    Date: April 24, 2014
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: Civil Action No. 2014-0658

Judges: Judge Ellen S. Huvelle

Filed Date: 4/24/2014

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014