United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tallahassee Division.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
CHARLES A. STAMPELOS, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
proceeding pro se, initiated this case by submitting a
petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 on June 7, 2018. ECF No. 1. Petitioner
simultaneously paid the filing fee, ECF No. 2, and the
petition has been reviewed.
alleges that he is a native and citizen of Cuba who entered
the United States in 1980 as part of the Mariel Boatlift. ECF
No. 1 at 4-5. Petitioner was taken into ICE custody on
October 28, 2017, having previously been ordered removed from
the United States on December 6, 1990. Id. at 3-5.
Petitioner asserts that ICE has been unable to remove him to
Cuba and contends that “Cuba will deny any and all
requests for travel documents . . . .” Id. at
5. Because he contends that it is not significantly likely
that he will be removed in the reasonably foreseeable future,
Petitioner seeks release from detention pursuant to
Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). Id.
the petition is generally sufficient for service, this case
must be transferred because Petitioner is detained at the
Glades County Detention Facility. ECF No. 1 at 2. Glades
County is not within the territorial jurisdiction of this
Court; it is within the jurisdiction of the Middle District
of Florida. Thus, because Petitioner is not detained within
the Northern District of Florida, this case cannot proceed in
the proper defendant in a habeas case is the petitioner's
“immediate custodian, ” that is, the warden of
the facility in which the petitioner is incarcerated or
detained at the time he files the habeas
petition. Rumsfeld v. Padilla,
U.S. 426, 439, 124 S.Ct. 2711, 159 L.Ed.2d 513 (2004);
see also Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of
Ky., 410 U.S. 484, 494-495, 93 S.Ct. 1123, 35 L.Ed.2d
443 (1973). Petitioner named the Sheriff of Glades County who
may, or may not, also be the warden of the Glades County
Detention Facility. Nevertheless, it is clear that Petitioner
is not confined within the Northern District of Florida.
“Only a court inside the district where the prisoner is
confined has jurisdiction to grant relief pursuant to a
§ 2241 petition.” United States v.
Saldana, 273 Fed.Appx. 845, 846 (11th Cir. 2008)
(holding that because none of the petitioners were confined
in the Southern District of Florida, that “district
court lacked jurisdiction to consider their § 2241
petitions.”). In the interest of justice, this case
should be transferred to the Ft. Myers Division of the Middle
District of Florida, the jurisdiction in which Petitioner is
respectfully RECOMMENDED that
Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus, ECF No.
1, filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 be
TRANSFERRED to the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Florida, Ft. Myers Division,
for all further proceedings, and the Clerk of Court be
directed to CLOSE this case.
CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida.
TO THE PARTIES
fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this
Report and Recommendation, a party may serve and file
specific written objections to these proposed findings and
recommendations. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2). A copy of the
objections shall be served upon all other parties. A party
may respond to another party's objections within fourteen
(14) days after being served with a copy thereof.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2). Any different deadline that may
appear on the electronic docket is for the Court's
internal use only and does not control. If a party fails
to object to the Magistrate Judge's findings or
recommendations as to any particular claim or issue contained
in this Report and Recommendation, that party waives the
right to challenge on appeal the District Court's order
based on the unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions.
See 11th Cir. Rule 3-1; 28 U.S.C. §
 Padilla rejected the view
that in "cases involving prisoners detained for
'other than federal criminal violations, '" a
proper respondent may be "the person exercising the
'legal reality of control' over the petitioner . . .
." 542 U.S. at 437, 124 S.Ct. at 2719.
Padilla does not alter the
well-settled rule that if a district court properly acquires
jurisdiction when the case was filed, then the
petitioner's subsequent removal to another judicial
district does not destroy the court's jurisdiction. 542
U.S. at 440, 124 S.Ct. at 2721 (relying on Ex parte
Endo, 323 U.S. 283, 306, 65 S.Ct. 208, 89 L.Ed. 243
(1944) (holding that despite the Japanese-American
citizen's removal from the district court's
territorial jurisdiction, a respondent who resided in the
district could appropriately execute the writ)). Indeed, the
Supreme Court reiterated the simple and consistently applied
rule that “[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.”
Padilla, 542 U.S. at 447, 124 S.Ct. at 2724. Thus,
“when the Government moves a habeas petitioner after
[he] properly files a petition naming [his] immediate