IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
December 18, 2007
JASON W. KIRKPATRICK, PLAINTIFF
STATE OF OHIO, FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, AND U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEFENDANTS
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Christopher C. Conner United States District Judge
AND NOW, this 18th day of December, 2007, upon consideration of plaintiff's petition/complaint (Doc. 1) challenging the detainer lodged against him in favor of the attorney general of the State of Ohio and upon consideration of plaintiff's letter brief in support thereof (Doc. 9),*fn1 and the court observing that the appropriate procedure under which to challenge the validity of a detainer against an individual in federal custody is a motion for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, see Grant v. Hogan, 505 F.3d 1220, 1223, 1225 (3d Cir. 1974) ("[H]abeas corpus is a proper vehicle for challenging a detainer on the ground that prosecution on the underlying charges would be unconstitutional."); Padilla v. Warden, No. 4:CV-07-919, 2007 WL 1544832, at *2 (M.D. Pa. May 24, 2007); Cameron v. Taylor, No. Civ. A. 06-0073, 2007 WL 542377, at *4 (D.N.J. Feb. 16, 2007), and the court further observing that a petitioner under § 2241 must exhaust available administrative remedies prior to seeking issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, see Antonakeas v. Sherman, No. 06-5003, 2007 WL 2390424, at *2 (3d Cir. Aug. 23, 2007); Grant, 505 F.2d at 1223, and it appearing that the Interstate Agreement on Detainers ("the Agreement"), 18 U.S.C. app. 2 § 2, to which the United States and the State of Ohio are parties, see id.; OHIO REV. CODE ANN. § 2363.30, provides mandatory remedial procedures*fn2 that must be exhausted prior to challenging a detainer under § 2241, see Grant, 505 F.2d at 1224 (holding that remedies under the Agreement must be pursued prior to filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus); Padilla, 2004 WL 1544832, at *2, and it further appearing that plaintiff has failed to pursue his remedies under the Agreement, see (Docs. 1, 9 (contending that the detainer against plaintiff is invalid without averring that plaintiff has pursued the remedies available under the Agreement)), it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's petition/complaint (Doc. 1) is CONSTRUED as a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The petition as so construed is DENIED for failure to exhaust remedial measures under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers. This denial is without prejudice to plaintiff's right to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus after he has exhausted his remedies under the Agreement.
2. The Clerk of Court is instructed to CLOSE this case.