Dunlap v. United States District Court of the District of Columbia

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
JERMAINE JOSEPH DUNLAP, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 22-1095 (UNA)
)
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, )
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, )
)
Respondent. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on the petition for a writ habeas corpus (ECF No. 1) of
Jermaine Joseph Dunlap, a California state prisoner. The assertions set forth in the petition are
incomprehensible. That said, by filing a habeas petition the Court presumes that petitioner
challenges his conviction and sentence and demands his release from custody.
A habeas action is subject to jurisdictional and statutory limitations. See Braden v. 30th
Judicial Cir. Ct. of Ky., 410 U.S. 484 (1973). The proper respondent in a habeas corpus action is
petitioner’s custodian, Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 434-35 (2004), who ordinarily is the
warden of the facility where a petitioner is detained, see Chatman-Bey v. Thornburgh, 864 F.2d
804, 811 (D.C. Cir. 1988). And this “district court may not entertain a habeas petition involving
present physical custody unless the respondent custodian is within its territorial jurisdiction.”
Stokes v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 374 F.3d 1235, 1239 (D.C. Cir. 2004). The petition neither
names petitioner’s custodian as a respondent nor demonstrates that the respondent is in the
District of Columbia.
1
The Court will grant petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss his
petition without prejudice for want of jurisdiction. A separate Order accompanies this
Memorandum Opinion.
2022.05.06
11:50:23 -04'00'
DATE: May 6, 2022 ________________________
TREVOR N. McFADDEN
United States District Judge
2