United States District Court, D. Maine
RECOMMENDED DECISION ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
C. Nivison U.S. Magistrate Judge
Charles Alpine,  who alleges that he is currently
incarcerated at a state correctional facility in Texas, has
filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, requesting a
writ of habeas corpus. (Petition, ECF No. 1.)
this allegation to request that the Court address
Petitioner's confinement in Texas, I recommend the Court
dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction.
“District courts are limited to granting habeas relief
‘within their respective jurisdictions.'”
Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 442 (2004)
(quoting 28 U.S.C. §2241(a)). “We have interpreted
this language to require ‘nothing more than the court
issuing the writ have jurisdiction over the
custodian.'” Id. (quoting Braden v.
30th Judicial Circuit Court of Ky., 410 U.S. 484, 495
(1973)). “The plain language of the habeas statute . .
. confirms the general rule that for core habeas petitions
challenging present physical confinement, jurisdiction lies
only in one district: the district of confinement.”
Id. at 443. “Whenever a § 2241 habeas
petitioner seeks to challenge his present physical custody
within the United States, he should name his warden as
respondent and file the petition in the district of
confinement.” Id. at 447.
has attempted to obtain relief in other districts in which he
was not confined. In Al-Pine v. Richerson, No.
18-2142, __ Fed.Appx. __, 2019 WL 610597, at *2
(10th Cir. 2019), the Tenth Circuit noted that
although Petitioner was confined in Texas, he filed the
section 2241 petition at issue in the United States District
Court for the District of New Mexico. The Court concluded
that under Padilla, the district court in New Mexico
lacked jurisdiction to grant Petitioner's section 2241
petition. Al-Pine, 2019 WL 610597, at *2 (discussing
Padilla, 542 U.S. at 443, 447). Similarly, in this
case, given that Petitioner is not confined in Maine, this
Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the merits of
Petitioner's section 2241 petition. See id.
to 28 U.S.C. § 1631, this Court must determine whether
to dismiss Petitioner's section 2241 petition or transfer
it to the district in which Petitioner is
confined. In Al-Pine, the Tenth Circuit
remanded Petitioner's case for the district court to
determine whether to transfer or dismiss it:
We conclude that the district court erred, as a matter of
law, in applying § 1915(g)'s requirements to Mr.
Al-Pine's § 2241 petition and thus abused its
discretion. But because Mr. Al-Pine filed his petition in the
wrong district, we remand with directions to dismiss the
petition or to transfer it to the appropriate district.
2019 WL 610597, at *2.
Petitioner's section 2241 petition in this Court,
dismissal, rather than transfer, is appropriate. Petitioner
alleges he is entitled to relief from a 2007 Texas state
court judgment and sentence that followed a jury trial on a
charge of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. (Petition
at 2.) A review of the PACER docket reveals that the Texas
state court case Petitioner identifies in the petition as
docket no. 1092935 was also at issue in a 28 U.S.C. §
2254 petition Petitioner filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia in 2012; the section 2254
petition was transferred to the Northern District of Texas,
which concluded the petition was a second or successive such
petition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244. (Alpine v.
Thaler, No. 7:12-cv-106-O, Report and Recommended
Decision (N.D. Tex. Aug. 3, 2012) (attaching, as Exhibit A,
Alpine v. State, No. 01-07-00177-CR, 2008 WL 2388128
(Tx. Ct. App. June 12, 2008)) (ECF No. 12); Order Accepting
Findings and Recommendation (N.D. Tex. Aug. 28, 2012) (ECF
No. 13).) The Northern District of Texas noted Petitioner had
twice been sanctioned by the Fifth Circuit for repetitive and
abusive pleadings. (Report and Recommended Decision at 2
(citing Fifth Circuit docket numbers 11-20865 and 12-20005,
in each of which cases the Fifth Circuit imposed a monetary
sanction that must be paid before an application to file a
successive section 2254 motion could be filed, unless
Petitioner obtained leave from a judge).)
recently, in August 2018, the Fifth Circuit again addressed
the sanctions issue. In Fifth Circuit docket number 18-11086,
in which Petitioner sought to appeal in a 42 U.S.C. §
1983 case that had been transferred from another district to
the Northern District of Texas, the Fifth Circuit informed
Petitioner he had not paid the sanctions imposed in the two
cases identified above (Fifth Circuit docket numbers 11-20865
and 12-20005), or the sanctions since imposed in Fifth
Circuit docket numbers 12-20114 and 12-20675. (Alpine v.
Richerson, No. 18-11086, Letter dated August 22, 2018,
from Fifth Circuit Office of the Clerk to Petitioner.) In
Fifth Circuit docket number 12-20114, Petitioner filed a
motion to proceed with a successive section 2254 petition
after having been sanctioned; the Court concluded the motion
was without merit and frivolous, and it imposed an additional
monetary sanction. (In re Charles Al-Pine, No.
12-20114, Order (5th Cir. Oct. 29, 2012).) In
Fifth Circuit docket number 12-20675, Petitioner requested a
certificate of appealability following the district
court's conclusion Petitioner had attempted to circumvent
the three strikes provision applicable to section 1983 cases
when he filed a section 2254 petition; the Fifth Circuit
denied a certificate of appealability and imposed a monetary
sanction. (Alpine v. Thaler, No. 12-20675, Order
(5th Cir. June 5, 2013).)
the history of Petitioner's filings outlined above, the
interests of justice do not warrant the transfer of the
petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631. Dismissal,
therefore, is appropriate.
on the foregoing analysis, I recommend the Court dismiss the
petition (ECF No. 1). I further recommend that the Court deny
a certificate of appealability because there is no
substantial showing of the denial of a ...