GRIGSBY v. THOMAS, No. 1:2020cv03197 - Document 3 (D.D.C. 2021)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION re 2 ORDER DISMISSING 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus for lack of jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Christopher R. Cooper on 08/18/2021. (lccrc2)

Download PDF
GRIGSBY v. THOMAS Doc. 3 Case 1:20-cv-03197-CRC Document 3 Filed 08/18/21 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA George Grigsby, Petitioner, v. Case No. 20-cv-3197 (CRC) Judge Mary Thomas, Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION Petitioner George Grigsby has filed a pro se “Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 USC 2241, 2254.” In the petition, which names as respondent Judge Mary Thomas, of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Grigsby challenges Judge Thomas’s decision “to place him in a mental health institution without a grand jury indictment[.]” Pet. at 1. Grigsby has filed repeated prior habeas actions in this District, each naming Judge Thomas as respondent and raising this same challenge. See Grigsby v. Thomas, 14-cv-1579, 2014 WL 4661195, at *1 (D.D.C. Sept. 19, 2014) (noting five prior petitions). In each, this Court found that it did not have jurisdiction over Grigsby’s petition. See, e.g., Grigsby v. Thomas, 18-cv2221 (D.D.C. Jan. 31, 2019) (ECF No. 3). The Court reaches the same conclusion here, and so dismisses the petition without prejudice for want of jurisdiction. The proper respondent for a habeas petition is the petitioner’s custodian. See Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 US. 426, 438–41 (2004). As in his previous unsuccessful petitions, Grigsby has not here indicated “how Judge Mary Thomas”—who he alleges placed him in a mental health institution—“could be his custodian.” Grigsby, 2014 WL 4661195, at *1. Moreover, even if Judge Thomas were the proper respondent, this Court would not have jurisdiction over Grigsby’s Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:20-cv-03197-CRC Document 3 Filed 08/18/21 Page 2 of 2 petition because a federal district court “may not entertain a habeas petition [under § 2241] 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). As a fellow judge of this Court has already recognized, if Grigsby “is confined at all, his confinement appears to be” in Illinois, “not Washington, D.C.”— the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Grigsby, 2014 WL 4661195, at *1. Because the Court does not have jurisdiction over Grigsby’s petition, it will dismiss this matter without prejudice. A separate Order shall accompany this memorandum opinion. CHRISTOPHER R. COOPER United States District Judge Date: August 18, 2021 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.