Smith v. United States
Smith v. United States
Trial Court Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS HOT SPRINGS DIVISION
HENRY SMITH PETITIONER
v. No. 6:22-cv-06078
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA RESPONDENT
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Before the Court is Smith’s Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Motion for Service. ECF No. 4. Smith filed this action pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2241. Under this provision, Smith must file his action in the “district wherein the restraint complained of is had.” See
28 U.S.C. § 2241(a). Smith is being held in the Federal Correctional Institution in Greenville, Illinois. This facility is not located in the Western District of Arkansas. Accordingly, the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this matter, and this case should be dismissed without prejudice. See, e.g., Kahn v. Kahn,
21 F.3d 859, 862(8th Cir. 1994) (recognizing such a dismissal is without prejudice). Furthermore, the Court declines to recommend a transfer of this action to the proper district court. Smith currently has a pending
28 U.S.C. § 2255action in the Western District of Arkansas. See U.S. v. Smith, 6:19-cv-06069 (W.D. Ark.). Smith represents he is only bringing this
28 U.S.C. § 2241action because there has been no decision in that matter: “In the United States District Court Western District of Arkansas, Hot Springs Division denied Plaintiff a decision rather or not Plaintiff lawyer were ineffective or not under Rule (37) ineffective assistance of counsel.” ECF No. 1 at 4. Thus, the Court recommends Smith’s case be dismissed without prejudice and not be transferred to the proper district where it should have been filed. The Parties have fourteen (14) days from receipt of this Report and Recommendation in which to file written objections pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. The Parties are reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the
district court. See Thompson v. Nix,
897 F.2d 356, 357(8th Cir. 1990). SIGNED this 29th day of July 2022.
Barry A. Bryant /s/ HON. BARRY A. BRYANT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Reference
- Status
- Unknown