Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Riches v. Kurtz

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS


July 23, 2008

JONATHAN LEE RICHES, PETITIONER,
v.
HOWARD KURTZ, RESPONDENT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Reagan, District Judge

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Petitioner, an inmate in the Federal Correctional Institute located in Salters, S.C., ("FCI-Williamsburg") and a notorious "frequent filer,"*fn1 brings this habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to obtain a transfer from FCI-Williamsburg to the Federal Correctional Institute located in Pekin, Illinois ("FCI-Pekin") in order to be closer to his girlfriend.

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in United States District Courts provides that upon preliminary consideration by the district court judge, "[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge shall make an order for its summary dismissal and cause the petitioner to be notified." Rule 1(b) of those Rules gives this Court the authority to apply the rules to other habeas corpus cases. After carefully reviewing the petition in the present case, the Court concludes that Petitioner is not entitled to relief, and the petition must be dismissed.

At the outset, this Court notes that neither Petitioner nor his immediate custodian is located in this judicial district.*fn2 Thus, this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over any party to this action. More importantly, a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to § 2241 does not extend to a prisoner unless he meets the criteria set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2241(b)(1) - (5). In this case, Petitioner's desire to be transferred to be closer to his girlfriend does not state a claim for habeas relief pursuant to § 2241(b)(1) - (5). Therefore, § 2241 cannot provide Petitioner with the desired relief, and this action is summarily DISMISSED with prejudice.

Alternatively, the Court notes that Plaintiff has failed to filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the required filing fee within thirty days as directed by this Court (Doc. 2). Therefore, Petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to § 2241 is also DISMISSED, with prejudice, pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

MICHAEL J. REAGAN United States District Judge


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.