GILBERT v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 1:2012cv01345 - Document 5 (D.D.C. 2012)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION accompanying final order issued separately this day. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 8/28/12.(ah)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ___________________________________ ) WALTER LEE GILBERT, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 12-1345 (EGS) ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Respondent. ) __________________________________ ) MEMORANDUM OPINION Petitioner, a prisoner at the United States Administrative Maximum ( Supermax ) facility in Florence, Colorado, has filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. ยง 2241. Having reviewed the petition, the Court will dismiss this action for lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner has stated no cogent grounds for habeas relief. See Pet. at 2 (arguing when a case is moot ); id. at 7-9 (listing no cognizable grounds for relief). Even if had, this Court would lack jurisdiction over the petition because the proper respondent in habeas corpus cases is the petitioner s warden or immediate custodian, Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 439 (2004); Blair-Bey v. Quick, 151 F.3d 1036, 1039 (D.C. Cir. 1998), and "a 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 Commission, 374 F.3d 1235, 1239 (D.C. Cir. 2004); accord 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). 1 Petitioner s custodian is not within this Court's territorial jurisdiction and transferring an incoherent petition to the appropriate court would serve no purpose. Hence, this case will be dismissed. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion. SIGNED: EMMET G. SULLIVAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE DATE: August 28, 2012 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
