Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Roy Steve Davis v. Francisco J. Quintana

January 18, 2011

ROY STEVE DAVIS,
PETITIONER,
v.
FRANCISCO J. QUINTANA, WARDEN,
RESPONDENT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Michael M. Anello United States District Judge

ORDER:

(1) DISMISSING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PETITIONER'S HABEAS PETITION; [Doc. No. 1]

(2) DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION TO TRANSFER

[Doc. No. 7]

On July 6, 2010, Petitioner Roy Steve Davis ("Davis") filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 2241. [Doc. No. 1.] Petitioner did not pay the filing fee or move to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and the Court dismissed his case without prejudice. On July 28, 2010, Petitioner paid the filing fee and the Court reopened his case. [Doc. No. 3.] The Court ordered Respondent Francisco J. Quintana, Warden, ("Respondent") to file a written return by September 20, 2010, and permitted Davis an opportunity to file a response by October 25, 2010. [Doc. No. 4.] Respondent filed a written return, and although Davis did not file a response, he filed a motion to transfer the case. [Doc. No. 7.]

For the reasons set forth below, the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Davis's Habeas Petition, and DENIES Davis's Motion to Transfer.

I.DISCUSSION

A. Jurisdiction

Respondent contends Davis's petition should be dismissed because Davis was not housed in a federal correctional institution in this judicial district when he filed the Petition. Thus, Respondent argues, Davis filed the Petition in the wrong judicial district.

"For a court to hear a petition for writ of habeas corpus, it must have jurisdiction over the prisoner or his custodian." Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir. 1992) (internal citation omitted). A petition for writ of habeas corpus must be directed at the person having custody over the prisoner. Id. "A custodian 'is the person having a day-to-day control over the prisoner. That person is the only one who can produce 'the body' of the petitioner.'" Id. (internal citation omitted).

This Court lacks jurisdiction to hear Davis's petition. At the time Davis filed his petition, he was an inmate at Victorville Federal Correctional Institution, located north of Los Angeles in the Central District of California. [Doc. No. 5-1; Doc. No. 7.] He named as respondent Francisco J. Quintana, the warden for Victorville Federal Correctional Institution. Davis incorrectly filed his petition in the Southern District of California, which does not extend north to include Los Angeles or any area north of Los Angeles. [See Doc. No. 1.] As the Court does not have jurisdiction over Davis or Respondent, the Court cannot hear Davis's habeas petition.

B. Transfer

Respondent also contends the Court should not transfer this case to another judicial district.

He asserts transferring the matter is improper because Petitioner is now an inmate at Coleman Federal Correctional Institution, located in the Middle Judicial District of Florida. Respondent contends the Florida district courts could not have exercised jurisdiction at the time the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.