Montagne v. Ericksen ( 2012 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
BRADFORD JOHN MONTAGNE et al., )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) Civ. Action No. 12-0369 (ABJ)
)
RALPH R. ERICKSEN et al., )
)
Respondents. )
________________________________ )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Petitioners, proceeding pro se, are two residents of Moose Lake, Minnesota, seeking
issuance of a writ of habeas corpus presumably under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The basis of petitioners’
custody is unclear, but to the extent that they can satisfy the “in custody” requirement of §
2241(c), their remedy lies, if at all, in the judicial district having personal jurisdiction over their
immediate custodian to whom “[t]he writ, or order to show cause shall be directed . . . .” 28
U.S.C. § 2243; see Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 439 (2004) (“reaffirm[ing] that the
immediate custodian . . . is the proper respondent” in a habeas action); Blair-Bey v. Quick, 151
F.3d 1036, 1039 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (“[T]he appropriate defendant in a habeas action is the
custodian of the prisoner.”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted) (alteration in
original).
Since petitioners’ alleged custodians are in Minnesota, this court lacks jurisdiction over
the instant petition. Rooney v. Secretary of Army, 405 F.3d 1029, 1032 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (habeas
“jurisdiction is proper only in the district in which the immediate, not the ultimate, custodian is
located") (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Hence, this action will be dismissed
without prejudice. See id. (“The problem for Rooney is that, because his declaratory judgment
1
action must be treated as a habeas petition, it must also be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.”).
A separate order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
. __________s/___________
AMY BERMAN JACKSON
United States District Judge
DATE: March 14, 2012
2