Kidd v. Tellez

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

eee een ene ee eee eee ene ennnnemenee

LLOYD C. KIDD :

Petitioner, :

Vv. : MEMORANDUM & ORDER

: 21-CV-1344 (WFK)

HERIBERTO TELLEZ, :

Respondent. :

ween ee ee ee eee

WILLIAM F. KUNTZ, II, United States District Judge:

Lloyd C. Kidd (“Petitioner”), proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (the “Petition’’). Petitioner alleges judicial intervention is needed to

address the harsh prison conditions he experienced while incarcerated at the Metropolitan

Detention Center Brooklyn (‘MDC Brooklyn”) and at the Metropolitan Correctional Center

(“MCC”) in Manhattan. ECF No. 1. For the following reasons, the Court finds the Petition is

improperly brought in the Eastern District of New York and must be transferred to U.S. District

Court for the District of South Carolina.

BACKGROUND

Following a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted in the United States District Court for the

Southern District of New York of sex trafficking a minor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591(a)

and (b)(2), and of inducing the minor victim to engage in sexually explicit conduct, in violation

of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2251 and (e) on July 15, 2019. Resp. Opp. at 6, ECF No. 12. On January 28,

2022, Petitioner was sentenced to a term of 256 months’ incarceration to be followed by a term

of five years of supervised release. S.D.N.Y. Docket Report, ECF No. 13-1.

In February 2022, Petitioner appealed his conviction to the United States Court of

Appeals for the Second Circuit. Jd. The appeal remains pending. Jd. Petitioner’s defense

counsel requested Petitioner be allowed to remain at MDC during his appeal, which Judge Victor

Marrero granted. Resp. Opp. at 8-9. However, despite Judge Marrero’s recommendation,

Petitioner was transferred out of the MDC in March 2022. Resp. Opp. at 9.

]

The instant pro se petition was filed on March 11, 2021. Petition, ECF No. 1. Petitioner

brings this application pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, seeking a writ of habeas corpus, alleging

“violation[s] of [Petitioner’s] 6th, 8th, and 14th Amendment rights due to extremely harsh .

conditions of confinement.” Jd. at 2. In opposition, Respondent argues the Petition should be

denied for several reasons. Resp. Opp. at 5, First, Respondent argues the Petition is largely

moot because Petitioner has since been transferred to another facility and is no longer

incarcerated at either the MCC or MDC. Jd. Respondent further argues this Court has been

divested jurisdiction over the instant petition as a consequence of Petitioner’s transferal out of

the Eastern District of New York. /d Finally, Respondent claims there is no basis for Petitioner

to assert a civil claim for damages as “there is no way to determine a cause of action or the

defendants.” Jd.

DISCUSSION

“A writ of habeas corpus under § 2241 is available to a federal prisoner who does not

challenge the legality of his sentence, but challenges instead its execution subsequent to his

conviction.” Carmona v. Bureau of Prisons, 243 F.3d 629, 632 (2d Cir. 2001). The execution of

a federal sentence “includes such matters as the administration of parole, ... prison disciplinary

actions, prison transfers, type of detention and prison conditions.” Jiminian v. Nash, 245 F.3d

144, 146 (2d Cir. 2001); see also Kingsley vy. Bureau of Prisons, 937 F.2d 26, 30 n. 5 (2d Cir.

1991) (“[C]hallenges to the length, appropriateness or conditions of confinement are properly

brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.”).

As Respondent acknowledges, it is “somewhat difficult” to parse Petitioner’s cause of

action. Resp. Opp. at 6. Petitioner does not enumerate any specific grounds upon which he is

entitled to relief in his Petition. Petition at 6-8. However, it appears Petitioner’s claims revolve

around the “extremely harsh conditions of confinement” Petitioner purportedly experienced

during his incarceration at the MCC and MDC. Jd. at 2. The Petition extensively details abuse

Petitioner allegedly suffered at the hands of both prison staff and fellow MCC inmates. Jd. at 12,

For example, Petitioner reports he was subjected to a violent attack in which one inmate tried to

cut Petitioner’s throat with a razor. Jd. Petitioner further alleges he was mistreated by various

prison guards at the MCC, who allegedly threatened, verbally abused, and sexually harassed

Petitioner. Jd. at 12-13. Petitioner also recounted one occasion in which he was involved in a

vehicular accident that occurred as he was returning to the MDC following a court appearance.

Id. at 13. Petitioner reports he was seriously injured in this accident and, while he eventually

received medical care, claims MDC personnel initially dismissed him. /d. Petitioner also claims

he has become a “social pariah” after his fellow inmates learned about the nature of the charges

upon which he was convicted. Jd.

In addition to the above, Petitioner claims to have been subjected to desperate conditions

at the MDC Brooklyn during the COVID-19 public health crisis. Jd. Detailing what he

describes as “beyond cruel and unusual punishment,” Petitioner explains how MDC inmates

were confined to their cells for nearly 24 hours per day, denied social and legal visits, and lived

in constant fear of exposure to COVID-19 during this period. Jd Lastly, Petitioner argues he

suffered an injustice after he helped save the life of a nurse who suffered seizure in his presence.

Id. at 14. Petitioner received $50.00 as a reward for alerting prison personnel and getting

medical assistance for the nurse, but argues he was “lowballed and barely acknowledged” for

this good deed. Jd.

The nature of Petitioner’s various complaints implicate the prison conditions Petitioner

experienced while incarcerated at the MCC and MDC. The Second Circuit has yet to address

whether § 2241 “is the appropriate mechanism for a petitioner in state custody to seek relief due

to COVID-19-related conditions of confinement.” Carter v. Fields, 19-CV-5364 (PKC), 2020

WL 5517241, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 14, 2020) (Chen, J.). However, because these petitions

implicate the health conditions of confinement, courts in the Second Circuit have found § 2241 is

a proper vehicle for petitions challenging the execution of a sentence predicated upon the □

COVID-19 pandemic. Id.; see also McPherson v. Lamont, 457 F. Supp. 3d 67, 75 (D. Conn.

2020) (Arterton, J.) (finding § 2241 was the proper vehicle for a petition challenging the health

conditions of the petitioners’ confinement, which they argued had become unconstitutional due

to the COVID-19 pandemic risk). This Court is similarly inclined and finds the instant Petition

is appropriately brought under § 2241.

Nevertheless, the Petition must be denied because this Court is not the proper venue.

Petitions challenging the execution of a sentence under § 2241 must be brought “in the district

court for the district where the prisoner is in custody.” See Sullivan v. United States, 02-CV-

4947 (SJ), 2002 WL 32096584, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 6, 2002) (Johnson, J.) (citation omitted);

see also Billiteri v. United States Board of Parole, 541 F.2d 938, 948 (2d Cir. 1976) (finding

courts must have jurisdiction over the “petitioner’s custodian” as a threshold requirement to

“entertain a habeas corpus action”); United States v. Jackson, 90-CR-109, 1992 WL 276610 at

*2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct.1, 1992) (Wood, J.) (‘An attack on the manner in which a sentence is executed

by the Bureau of Prisons may be made only as a habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241,

which must be filed in the district of confinement.”). “[W]Jhen a petitioner is transferred from a

facility, any claims for injunctive relief against that facility become moot.” See Allen v. Lindsay,

09-CV-1283 KAM, 2010 WL 5067907, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 7, 2010) (Matsumoto, J.) (citing

Hill vy. Zenk, 115 F. App’x 97, 97 (2d Cir. 2004) (“Because [the petitioner] brought his action for

relief against the warden of a facility in which he concedes he is no longer incarcerated, his

petition for relief is moot.”)); see also Thompson v. Choinski, 525 F.3d 205, 209 (2d Cir. 2008)

(denying as moot a § 2241 petition seeking to modify a petitioner’s conditions of confinement

because the petitioner had since been transferred from a Connecticut facility to a penitentiary in

Pennsylvania). This outcome is required “even if the Section 2241 habeas petition was properly

filed in the district of confinement prior to the transfer.” Allen, 2010 WL 5067907, at *2.

Petitioner was in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) in New York City

between December 2018 and January 2022, at the MCC followed by the MDC. Inmate Location

History, ECF No. 13-2. Petitioner filed the instant petition in the Eastern District of New York

while he was incarcerated at MDC Brooklyn. Petition at 1. Therefore, at the time of filing, the

Petition was properly brought in this Court. However, as Respondent notes, Petitioner has since

been transferred from the MDC to Ray Brook Federal Correctional Institution in Ray Brook,

New York. Resp. Opp. at 9. Furthermore, since the filing of Respondent’s Opposition,

Petitioner was transferred yet again. According to the BOP Inmate Locator, Petitioner is

presently incarcerated at Williamsburg Federal Correction Institute in Salters, South Carolina.

See https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ (last visited Mar. 24, 2023),

The Court acknowledges the harsh conditions faced by Petitioner during his time at the

MCC and MDC. All people are entitled to respect and humane treatment while serving a federal

sentence and the Court is particularly disturbed by the conditions Petitioner and his fellow

inmates suffered as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, Petitioner has been

transferred far beyond this Court’s jurisdiction. Consequently, this Court is no longer the proper

venue for Petitioner’s claims.

Having found venue is improper in the Eastern District of New York, the Court must

decide whether to dismiss the action or, alternatively, transfer it to the district in which Petitioner

is presently incarcerated. Pursuant to Section 1404(a) of Title 28 of the United States Code,

“Tt]he district court of a district in which is filed a case laying venue in the wrong division or

district shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or

division in which it could have been brought.” District courts possess broad discretion to

transfer habeas petitions brought under § 2241. See Kahane y. Carlson, 527 F.2d 492, 493 n. 1

(2d Cir. 1975) (“28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) gives the district judge very broad discretion to remove [a]

prisoner’s cause of action to another judicial district.”); see also Sullivan, 2002 WL 32096584, at

*2 (transferring the § 2241 portion of a habeas petition because the petitioner was transferred to a

prison facility in Kentucky and emphasizing the breadth of the Court’s in so deciding). Because

Petitioner is currently incarcerated in Salters, South Carolina, located within the United States

District Court for the District of South Carolina, the Court transfers this petition to the United

States District Court for the District of South Carolina in the interest of justice.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to serve notice

of entry of this Order on all parties and to transfer this petition to the United States District Court

for the District of South Carolina.

SO ORDERED.” ~,

s/WFK 2

so poi

-fION. WILLIAM F. KUNTZ, II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: March 27, 2023

Brooklyn, New York