Bussie v. Yellen

United States District Court for the Northern District of California

Bussie v. Yellen

Trial Court Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 7 8 ANTHONY BUSSIE, Case No. 21-cv-03054-KAW (PR)

9 Petitioner, ORDER OF TRANSFER 10 v.

11 JANET YELLEN, 12 Respondent.

13 14 Petitioner, a civil detainee housed at the Federal Medical Center in Butner, North Carolina, 15 filed a petition under

28 U.S.C. § 2241

. Petitioner was convicted and sentenced in the Eastern 16 District of North Carolina. The Federal Medical Center is located in the Eastern District of North 17 Carolina. Although the petition is difficult to understand, it appears that Petitioner seeks release 18 from custody and is challenging the rulings in the prisoner class action, Scholl v Mnuchin, Case 19 Number C 20-5309 (PJH) (N.D. Cal.). 20 Section 2241 allows “the Supreme Court, any justice thereof, the district courts and any 21 circuit judge” to grant writs of habeas corpus “within their respective jurisdictions.” 28 U.S.C. 22 § 2241(a). The Supreme Court has interpreted this to mean that, for habeas petitions challenging 23 physical confinement, jurisdiction lies in only one district: the district of confinement. Rumsfeld 24 v. Padilla,

542 U.S. 426, 442-43

(2004). 25 Because Petitioner is challenging his physical confinement, this case must be transferred to 26 the Eastern District of North Carolina. 27 Insofar as Petitioner is challenging rulings in Scholl v. Mnuchin, he may file a letter in that 1 The Clerk of the Court shall terminate any pending motions and transfer this case to the 2 || Eastern District of North Carolina. 3 4 Dated: May 5, 2021 □ bln. 5 we A. WESTMORE 6 United States Magistrate Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12

13

© 15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Reference

Status
Unknown