United States District Court, D. Columbia.
Decided January 31, 2014
MARCUS ORLANDO TAITE, Petitioner, Pro se, Brent, AL.
Reggie B. Walton, United States District Judge.
The Court construes the petitioner's submission as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. A habeas action is subject to jurisdictional and statutory limitations. See Braden v. 30th Judicial Cir. Ct. of Ky., 410 U.S. 484, 93 S.Ct. 1123, 35 L.Ed.2d 443
(1973). The proper respondent in a habeas corpus action is the petitioner's warden. Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 434-35, 124 S.Ct. 2711, 159 L.Ed.2d 513 (2004); Blair-Bey v. Quick, 151 F.3d 1036, 1039, 331 U.S. App. D.C. 362 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (citing Chatman-Bey v. Thornburgh, 864 F.2d 804, 810, 274 U.S. App. D.C. 398 (D.C. Cir. 1988)). The petitioner currently is incarcerated at an Alabama correctional facility. The Court cannot entertain this petition for a writ of habeas corpus because neither the petitioner nor his custodian is within its territorial jurisdiction. See Stokes v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 374 F.3d 1235, 1239, 362 U.S. App. D.C. 410 (D.C. Cir. 2004). Accordingly, the Court will deny the petition and dismiss this action. An Order is issued separately.
For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is hereby
ORDERED that the petitioner's application to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED; it is
FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that this civil action is DISMISSED.
This is a final appealable Order. See Fed. ...