Winding v. Brown

Summary

The District Court for the District of Columbia grants James C. Winding leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismisses his case without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. Construing his challenge to his detention and state-court conviction as a habeas petition, the court concludes that the proper respondent and custodial jurisdiction are in Mississippi, and notes that transfer is inappropriate in light of a Fifth Circuit filing restriction.

Holdings

1. When a plaintiff challenges the fact or duration of his confinement and seeks release, the exclusive remedy is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus rather than an ordinary civil action.
2. A district court may not entertain a § 2241 habeas petition involving present physical custody unless the respondent immediate custodian is within the court's territorial jurisdiction; the petitioner must generally be physically present and detained within that jurisdiction.
3. A federal habeas challenge to a state conviction under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 must be brought in a court with jurisdiction over the petitioner and the custodian, generally the district where the petitioner is confined or where the state court that convicted and sentenced him sits; available state remedies must also be exhausted.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the court should construe the plaintiff's civil complaint as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus because he sought release from allegedly unlawful confinement.
2. Whether the District Court for the District of Columbia had jurisdiction over a habeas petition challenging the plaintiff's confinement when he was physically confined in Mississippi, had not named his immediate custodian, and had not alleged personal jurisdiction over that custodian.
3. Whether the plaintiff's challenge to his state-court indictment and conviction could be entertained in the District of Columbia under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

Disposition

dismissed