Kevin Kohute v. Doctor Proctner, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Nevada denied Kevin Kohute’s application to proceed in forma pauperis because it was incomplete and summarily dismissed his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition without prejudice. The court held that it lacked jurisdiction because Kohute was confined in Texas, had no alleged connection to Nevada, and the petition was frivolous and failed to state a valid basis for habeas relief.

Holdings

1. The District of Nevada lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the petition because Kohute was confined in Texas, no person with custody over him was located in Nevada, none of the respondents was located in Nevada, and the petition alleged no connection to Nevada.
2. Although the court had discretion to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, transfer was not warranted because the petition was wholly without merit and did not allege specific facts or a valid legal ground for habeas relief.
3. The petition was summarily dismissed without prejudice because it was frivolous, lacked specific factual allegations, and did not assert a valid legal ground on which federal habeas relief could be granted.
4. The application to proceed in forma pauperis was denied because Kohute failed to provide the information requested on the form.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the District of Nevada had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 over a habeas petition filed by a person confined in a Texas jail when neither the custodian nor the respondents were located in Nevada.
2. Whether the court should transfer the action to the federal district court in Texas rather than dismiss it.
3. Whether the petition should be summarily dismissed because it was frivolous, lacked specific factual allegations, and did not assert a valid legal ground for federal habeas relief.
4. Whether the petitioner's incomplete application to proceed in forma pauperis should be denied.

Disposition

dismissed