writ of habeas corpus does not act upon the prisoner who seek relief, but upon his or her custodian
How later courts described this case
- writ of habeas corpus does not act upon the prisoner who seek relief, but upon his or her custodian
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
EDWIN BROWN,
Petitioner,
23-CV-0635 (LTS)
-against-
TRANSFER ORDER
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge:
Petitioner Edwin Brown, who was convicted in United States v. Brown, No. 17-CR-0710-
02 (KPF) (S.D.N.Y.), is currently on supervised release in the Southern District of Florida. He
brings this pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging
the calculation of his earned time credit under the First Step Act. For the following reason, this
petition is transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
In order to entertain a habeas corpus petition under Section 2241, a court must have
jurisdiction over the petitioner’s custodian. See Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of
Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484, 494-95 (1973) (writ of habeas corpus does not act upon the prisoner
who seek relief, but upon his or her custodian). Thus, venue of a habeas petition challenging a
petitioner’s physical confinement generally lies in the district of his confinement. Rumsfeld v.
Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 442 (2004). Petitioner is currently on supervised release in the Southern
District of Florida. Therefore, in the interest of justice, this Court transfers this petition to the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).
CONCLUSION
The Clerk of Court is directed to transfer this action to the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida. Whether Petitioner should be permitted to proceed further
without payment of fees is a determination to be made by the transferee court.1 This order closes
the case in this district.
The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from this order
would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose
of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).
SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 30, 2023
New York, New York
/s/ Laura Taylor Swain
LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN
Chief United States District Judge
1 Petitioner has not yet paid the $5.00 filing fee or submitted an application to proceed in
forma pauperis.