United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
March 10, 2014
MOISHE EANONE EAYOHEN, Petitioner,
ONE UNKNOWN NAMED FBI SPECIAL AGENT, et al., Respondents
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
KAROLINE MEHALCHICK, Magistrate Judge.
On March 7, 2014, the Court received and filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and complaint by Petitioner, Moishe Eanone Eayohen. (Doc. 1). Eayohen is currently incarcerated at the Northeast Ohio Correctional Center in Youngstown, Ohio. He was charged in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York in Buffalo, New York, and is currently a federal pretrial detainee. (Doc. 1). He is also currently serving a sentence after having been convicted and sentenced by the Connecticut Superior Court in New Haven, Connecticut. Eayohen challenges the pretrial detention, detainer, and validity of his conviction or sentence imposed. The correctional center in Youngstown, Ohio, is located in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. None of the people, property, or events described in the petition appear to have any connection to this federal judicial district, the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
Based upon the Court's review of the facts alleged in the petition, it is clear that venue is not proper in this federal judicial district and that the Middle District of Pennsylvania lacks jurisdiction. "[T]he general rule that for core habeas petitions challenging present physical confinement, jurisdiction lies in only one district: the district of confinement." Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 443 (2004). Thus, "[w]henever 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." Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. at 447. As Petitioner is currently a federal pretrial detainee held in custody in the Northern District of Ohio, this Court lacks jurisdiction. It will be in the interest of justice to transfer this petition to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio where the petitioner is in custody of the U.S. Marshal Service. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) (authorizing transfer to proper venue); Goldlawr, Inc. v. Heiman, 369 U.S. 463, 465-66 (1962) (allowing venue transfers under § 1406(a) in the absence of jurisdiction).
Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that this case be transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio for further proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).