“[W]hen there is only one custody and one physical custodian, that person is the proper respondent, and the district in which the prison is located [is] the proper district[] for proceeding under [28 U.S.C.] §2241(a).”
How later courts described this case
- “[W]hen there is only one custody and one physical custodian, that person is the proper respondent, and the district in which the prison is located [is] the proper district[] for proceeding under [28 U.S.C.] §2241(a).”
- “[W]hen the [habeas] petitioner is in federal…custody, the petitioner’s immediate custodian—the warden of the prison or other facility in which the petitioner is confined—is the only proper respondent.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
REGINALD M. BROWN, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 3:22-cv-3107-DWD
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Respondent. )
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
DUGAN, District Judge:
Before the Court is Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 5) of the
designation of this case as a mandamus action rather than a habeas corpus action, as
suggested by Petitioner’s Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Application”) (Doc.
1). The Court GRANTS that request and DIRECTS Petitioner to take the necessary steps
for paying the filing fee or proceeding in forma pauperis. (Doc. 3). The failure to pay the
fee or to file a Motion and Affidavit to Proceed in the District Court Without Prepaying
Fees or Costs, within 30 days of this date, could result in a dismissal of the case. (Doc. 3).
Next, the basis for the Application is not entirely clear. Petitioner states the
Application is brought “in its original form and not in the form of 28 U.S.C. 2255 due to
issues of lack of jurisdiction on the original court[,] who was operating beyond its
authority as well as the UNITED STATES which was operating out of its jurisdiction in 2
separate instances.” (Doc. 1, pg. 1). However, Petitioner is confined at the Federal
Correctional Institution in El Reno, Oklahoma. (Doc. 1, pg. 9). Therefore, if Petitioner does
not wish to proceed under § 2255, then it is unclear why his Application was filed with
this Court against the United States of America. See al-Marri v. Rumsfeld, 360 F.3d 707, 712
(7th Cir. 2004) (“[W]hen there is only one custody and one physical custodian, that person
is the proper respondent, and the district in which the prison is located [is] the proper
district[] for proceeding under [28 U.S.C.] §2241(a).”); accord Mitchell v. Bledsoe, No. 06-
624, 2009 WL 3156689, *1 (S.D. Ill. Sept. 28, 2009); see also Bridges v. Chambers, 425 F.3d
1048, 1050 (7th Cir. 2005) (“[W]hen the [habeas] petitioner is in federal…custody, the
petitioner’s immediate custodian—the warden of the prison or other facility in which the
petitioner is confined—is the only proper respondent.”).
In any event, the Court FINDS additional information related to Petitioner’s
Application is necessary before the Court’s preliminary review under Rule 4 of the Rules
Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts.1 2 Under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2242, the Application “shall allege the facts concerning the applicant’s commitment or
detention, the name of the person who has custody over him[,] and by virtue of what
claim or authority, if known.” At present, Petitioner’s Application does not include that
information. Similarly, under Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the
United States District Courts, an Application must, among other things, specify all the
grounds for relief available to a petitioner, state the facts supporting each ground, and
1Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts provides: “If
it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in
the district court, the judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner.”
2Rule 1(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts states:
“[t]he district court may apply any or all of these rules to a habeas corpus petition not covered by Rule
1(a).” Therefore, the Court may apply those rules in the present case. See Hudson v. Helman, 948 F. Supp.
810 (C.D. Ill. 1996) (citing Kramer v. Jenkins, 108 F.R.D. 429, 431 (N.D. Ill. 1985)).
state the relief requested. See Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the
United States District Courts. Again, the Application raises jurisdictional arguments and
cites certain legal authorities, but it is otherwise deficient as to the specific facts
surrounding Petitioner’s conviction, sentence, and prior attempts at postconviction relief.
Therefore, Petitioner is DIRECTED to file a Supplement to the Application for
Writ of Habeas Corpus by May 19, 2023. To assist Plaintiff in this task, the Clerk of the
Court is DIRECTED to send Petitioner the form Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and the related instructions.3 As discussed above, the exact basis
for the Application is unclear, but the Court emphasizes “challenges [to] the imposition
of [Petitioner’s] sentence…is a contention ordinarily raised only under [28 U.S.C.] § 2255,
[citation], whereas challenges to the execution of a sentence are generally brought under
§2241.” See McCall v. U.S., 304 Fed. Appx. 449, 450 (7th Cir. 2008) (citing Kramer v. Olson,
347 F.3d 214, 217 (7th Cir. 2003); Valona v. U.S., 138 F.3d 693, 694 (7th Cir. 1998)).
SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 5, 2023 s/ David W. Dugan
______________________________
DAVID W. DUGAN
United States District Judge
3Rule 2(d) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts requires
as follows: “The petition must substantially follow either the form appended to these rules or a form
prescribed by a local district-court rule.”