Gardner v. United States of America

District Court, D. Montana

Gardner v. United States of America

Trial Court Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA BILLINGS DIVISION

MERRILL CLARK GARDNER, Cause No. CV 23-45-BLG-SPW-TJC Petitioner, VS. ORDER UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and M.V. JOSEPH, Warden, Pensacola Federal Prison Camp, Florida, Respondents.

This case comes before the Court on Petitioner Merrill Clark Gardner’s “Demand for Injunctive Relief.” (Doc. 1.) Gardner is currently incarcerated at Pensacola Federal Prison Camp in Florida. He was convicted in this Court of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine. See United States v. Gardner, No. CR 15-73-BLG- SPW (D. Mont. filed July 29, 2016). He previously filed a timely

28 U.S.C. § 2255

motion challenging his conviction. Jd., (Doc. 95.) The motion was denied on November 19, 2018. (Doc. 99.) Gardner’s current filing is described by him as a request for injunctive relief and, explicitly, “this demand is not a § 2255, § 2241 or other remedy in U.S. Code.” (Doc. 1 at 7.) However, Gardner’s petition challenges the legality of his

current confinement at Pensacola. He contends that those having custody of him have improperly decided his ineligibility for early release from his sentence under various federal statutes. (Doc. | at 3 et seq.) Regardless of how Gardner characterizes this claim, “for core habeas petitions challenging present physical confinement, jurisdiction lies in only one district: the district of confinement.” Rumsfeld v. Padilla,

542 U.S. 426, 443

(2004). This Court lacks jurisdiction. Lack of jurisdiction may be cured if transfer is “in the interest of justice.”

28 U.S.C. § 1631

. Transfer is not in the interest of justice. Gardner has not paid his filing fee in this Court, and he contends the Court is without authority to collect it. (Doc. | at 6 —7.) If Gardner wishes to proceed, he may file a petition in the proper District. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: 1. The petition is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. 2. All pending motions are MOOT. 3. The clerk shall enter, by separate document, a judgment of dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. DATED this Sor day of May, 2023. Bre oman 2 Leb tte. Susan P. Watters United States District Judge

Reference

Status
Unknown