Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

ROBERT WILLIE JOHNSON,

Petitioner,

-against-

LEWISBURG UNITED STATES

26-CV-2787 (LTS)

PENITENTIARY; FEDERAL BUREAU

OF PRISONS; GEOFFREY J.L. BROWN; TRANSFER ORDER

MARK W. PEDERSEN; ANTHONY

ZACHARY GLAZE; KARLIE HALL;

PAUL TUCK; UNITED STATES OF

AMERICA,

Respondents.

LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge:

Petitioner, who is currently held at FMC Devens in Ayer, Massachusetts, brings this pro

se petition for a writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, seeking to challenge his

detention. At the time he filed the petition, Petitioner was held at USP Lewisburg in Kelly

Township, Union County, Pennsylvania. For the following reasons, the Court transfers the

petition to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

In order to entertain a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a court must have

jurisdiction over the custodian. See Braden v. 30th Jud. Cir. Ct. of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484, 494-

95 (1973) (explaining that the writ of habeas corpus does not act upon the prisoner who seeks

relief, but upon his or her custodian). Thus, the jurisdiction of a habeas corpus petition

challenging a petitioner’s physical confinement generally lies in the district of his confinement at

the time of filing. Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 442-43 (2004); Khalil v. Joyce, 771 F.

Supp. 3d 268, 273 (S.D.N.Y. 2025) (“Generally, a person challenging his detention through a

habeas petition is required to file that petition in the federal district where he is detained at the

time of filing[.]”). At the time Petitioner filed the petition, he was detained at USP Lewisburg,

which is located in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. See 28 U.S.C. § 118(b). Therefore, in the

interest of justice, this Court transfers this petition to the United States District Court for the

Middle District of Pennsylvania. 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 Middle District of Pennsylvania. Whether Petitioner should be permitted to proceed

further without payment of fees is a determination to be made by the transferee court. This order

closes this case in this court.

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: April 15, 2026

New York, New York

/s/ Laura Taylor Swain

LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN

Chief United States District Judge