(HC) James v. Sacramento County Sheriff ( 2023 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS RONALD EUGENE JAMES, Petitioner, v. CASE NO. 23-3214-JWL STATE OF KANSAS, Respondent. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is a petition for habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner challenges his detention under a Kansas warrant on the grounds that his right to a speedy trial was violated. Plaintiff is currently confined at the Sacramento County Jail in Sacramento, California. Because the Court has no jurisdiction over Petitioner’s warden, the Court directs the Clerk of the Court to transfer this case to the Eastern District of California. A preliminary issue on review of a habeas petition is whether the Court has jurisdiction over the respondent. “[T]he proper respondent to a habeas petition is ‘the person who has custody over [the petitioner],’” that is, “the warden of the facility where the prisoner is being held, not the Attorney General or some other remote supervisory official.” Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 434-35 (2004) (citations omitted); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2243 (“The writ, or order to show cause shall be directed to the person having custody of the person detained.”); 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a) (stating that “[w]rits of habeas corpus may be granted by . . . the district courts . . . within their respective jurisdictions”). When a case is filed in the wrong district, the district court must “dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district . . . in which it could have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). Petitioner is detained at the Sacramento County Jail in Sacramento, California. The warden of the Sacramento County Jail is the proper respondent in this case. Because the warden is located outside this Court’s geographical boundaries, the Court has no jurisdiction over him or her. The Court makes no finding on the merits of Petitioner’s claim or whether it is properly brought pursuant to a petition for habeas corpus. Because Petitioner is challenging his detention under an out of state hold at the Sacramento County Jail, the proper venue is the Eastern District of California where Petitioner is confined. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, the Court orders the Clerk of Court to transfer this case to the Eastern District of California. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that the Clerk of Court is ordered to transfer this case to the Eastern District of California. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated September 27, 2023, in Kansas City, Kansas. S/ John W. Lungstrum JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE