October 9, 2014
JOBEY HENDERSON, Petitioner
PAROLE BOARD, Respondent
Plaintiff JOBEY HENDERSON represented by JOBEY HENDERSON
Defendant MAINE PAROLE BOARD
ORDER AND RECOMMENDED DECISION ORDER
John C. Nivison U.S. Magistrate Judge
Petitioner Jobey Henderson seeks habeas relief. The matter is before the Court on Petitioner’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 2). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), this Court “may authorize the commencement . . . of any suit, action or proceeding, civil or criminal, . . . without prepayment of fees or security therefor, ” based on a proper showing of indigent status. Based on Plaintiff’s sworn statement in his IFP Application and the Certificate of Prisoner Trust Fund Account Activity (ECF No. 4), the Court grants the motion.
Petitioner has filed a petition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, for a writ of habeas corpus, in which petition he names the “Parole Board” as Respondent, and identifies the Attorney General for the State of Maine as an interested party. In his petition, Petitioner apparently seeks, or seeks to challenge, “a declaratory ruling from the Maine Department of Corrections Commissioner challenging a state judgment that imposed a sentence to serve in the future in the 29th Judicial Circuit Court regarding parole in Maine.” (Petition, ECF No. 1, at 1.)
According to the filing, Petitioner is currently incarcerated in Michigan,  serving a sentence imposed by a Michigan state court. As grounds for his requested relief, Petitioner complains entirely of decisions made by Michigan authorities related to his alleged right to be paroled, to obtain employment, to have a “custody reduction, ” to receive a parole loan, and to participate in certain release planning programs. Petitioner requests a declaratory ruling that he is entitled to these benefits and, evidently, that he should be transferred to Maine for the balance of his prison term. (Id. at 6-10.)
Petitioner attached to the petition (1) a February 2014 order from the Sixth Circuit denying Petitioner leave to file a second or successive habeas petition (ECF No. 1-7), and (2) orders (ECF No. 1-9, October 2012; ECF No. 1-8, September 2013) of the Circuit Court for the County of Genesee denying Petitioner’s requested relief regarding certain parole determinations. Presumably, Petitioner filed the attachments in an effort to demonstrate that he exhausted the available state remedies.
Because Petitioner does not allege that he is incarcerated on a Maine charge, for this Court to have jurisdiction to consider Petitioner’s habeas writ, the Court must have jurisdiction over the custodian of the prisoner. See Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court, 410 U.S. 484, 499 (1973). According to Petitioner, he is incarcerated in Michigan. This Court does not have jurisdiction over the chief administrator of the jails and prisons in Michigan. Accordingly, this Court does not have jurisdiction to consider Petitioner’s request for relief. The recommendation, therefore, is that the Court dismiss the petition.