The opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CAMDEN VICINAGE
:
FREDERICK SELLERS, :
: Civil No. 19-17228(RMB)
Petitioner :
:
v. : MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
:
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF :
THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, :
:
Respondent :
:
This matter comes before the Court upon Petitioner Frederick
Sellers’ petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
(Pet., ECF No. 1.) Petitioner is an inmate incarcerated in the
Federal Correctional Facility in Fort Dix, New Jersey “FCI Fort
Dix.” (Pet., ECF No. 1.)
Petitioner states one ground for relief in his habeas
petition:
On Dec. 9, 2009 I was arrested and sentenced
in a federal court for distributing 5 or more
kilos of cocaine. On Nov. 12, 2010 I was found
guilty. Subsequently on April 4, 2010 [I] was
sentenced to 188 months. Prior to my December
9, 2009 arrest I was on State parole. 2 days
after my arrest the Pa. Bd of probation and
parole lodged a detainer against me. After
numerous letters asking if they could remove
the detainer so I could benefit from some of
the programs the BOP offer I was rejected. The
board had an obligation to give me a violation
hearing 120 after my federal sentencing. After
I wrote letters to the Parole Board I filed a
motion to the courts of Common Pleas in
Philadelphia. A few weeks later I contacted
the courts and was told that if I didn’t have
a docket number they couldn’t docket my motion
so I thought this was my only course of action.
Note: the courts never returned my motion.
(Pet., ECF No. 1, ¶12.) For relief, Petitioner asks this Court to
order the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole to remove the
state detainer. (Pet., ECF No. 1 at 8.)
In Braden v. 30th Judicial District of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484,
498-500 (1975), the Supreme Court held that a prisoner serving a
sentence imposed by one State who seeks to challenge a detainer
lodged by another State may bring a § 2254 petition in the
“demanding state.” The Court reasoned “[w]e cannot assume that
Congress intended to require [a State] to defend its action in a
distant State and to preclude resolution of the dispute by a
federal judge familiar with the law and practices of [the proper
state forum].” Id. at 499.
Petitioner here challenges a detainer imposed by the
Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole.1 Therefore, this Court
will transfer the petition to the proper forum, the United States
District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania. See Lafferty v.
St. Riel, 495 F.3d 72, 77 (3d Cir. 2007) (where a plaintiff files
1 The Court notes Petitioner has not named the proper respondent
to the petition but reserves the issue for the transferee court.
suit in an improper forum, a district court is required by 28
U.S.C. § 1406(a) to dismiss or transfer to a proper venue).
IT IS therefore on this 7th day of October 2019,
ORDERED that the Clerk shall transfer this matter to the
United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk shall close this matter.
s/Renée Marie Bumb
RENÉE MARIE BUMB
United States District Judge