United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Charleston Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
GORDON BAKER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Jeffrey Glenn McCoy, a pro se South Carolina state
prisoner, seeks habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
(Dkt. No. 1). Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local
Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.), the assigned United States
Magistrate Judge is authorized to review the petition and
submit a recommendation to the United States District Judge.
For the following reasons, the undersigned recommends that
the petition be summarily dismissed, without prejudice and
without requiring the Warden to respond.
is serving sentences for South Carolina convictions at
Kirkland Correctional Institution in Columbia, South
Carolina. Respondent Willie Davis is the warden.
§ 2241 petition involves a detainer from Mississippi
filed against him. (See Dkt. No. 1 at 1.) According
to McCoy, the detainer is invalid because it “is not
supported by an affidavit with judicial determination as to
probable cause.” (Dkt. No. 1 at 3.) Nor could it be,
McCoy alleges, as there is no evidence he was even in
Mississippi when the crimes were committed, let alone that he
committed them. (Id. at 2-3.) McCoy contends the
detainer violates the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, and
he wants this Court to order the detainer dismissed.
(Id. at 3.)
a preliminary review of McCoy's § 2241 petition.
See Rule 4, Rules Governing § 2254 Cases;
see also Rule 1(b), Rules Governing § 2254
Cases (allowing district courts to apply the rules to other
§ 2241 petitions). The narrow question before the Court
is whether it “plainly appears” that McCoy is not
entitled to any relief in this Court. Rule 4, Rules Governing
§ 2254 Cases. If so, the petition must be dismissed; if
not, the warden must respond. Id. Because McCoy is
representing himself, the undersigned has reviewed the
petition liberally. See, e.g., Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).
§ 2241 petition is subject to summary dismissal because
it does not name the proper respondent, and this Court lacks
personal jurisdiction over the proper respondent, and because
this district is not the proper forum for the dispute.
prisoner in custody in one state may use § 2241 to
attack a detainer lodged by another state. Braden v. 30th
Jud.Cir. Ct. of Ky., 410 U.S. 484, 488-89 (1973). A
prisoner can challenge the validity of the detainer itself,
the effect it has on his current custody, or both. See
Norris v. Georgia, 522 F.2d 1006, 1011 (4th Cir. 1975).
There is a “fundamental distinction” between
those two types of challenges: “[t]he former is an
assault on the detainer's underlying criminal charges or
conviction, ” while the latter challenges the adverse
impacts on the prisoner's current confinement that have
resulted from the detainer being filed. Id.
type of challenge a prisoner brings against another
state's detainer dictates who and where he must sue. A
prisoner challenging a detainer's effect on his current
confinement may sue his warden in the district where he is
confined. See Norris, 522 F.2d at 1010, 1012.
However, a prisoner attacking the detainer's validity
“must file in the district where the detainer
originates, as that district court alone has jurisdiction
over the [out-of-]state defendants.” Skinner v.
United States, 857 F.2d 1469, 1988 WL 92926 at
*1 (4th Cir. 1988) (per curiam) (table); accord
Emanuel v. Witkowski, 915 F.2d 1564, 1990 WL
148486, at *1 (4th Cir. 1990) (per curiam) (table);
Wallace v. Crawley, 817 F.2d 103, 1987 WL
35965, at *1 (4th Cir. 1987) (per curiam) (table). As the
Fourth Circuit explained in Norris, this is so
because [i]n order to possess jurisdiction in a case
involving a challenge to an untried criminal charge on which
a detainer is based, a federal district court must possess
the power to grant relief, which would entail possessing the
power to direct
[i]n personam, that the pending charge be dismissed. However,
a federal district court in the state and district of
confinement simply has no state officer within its
jurisdiction whom it can direct to dismiss the pending
charges, and there is no way of enforcing any writ to that
effect which might be issued.
522 F.2d at 1013 (citation omitted); see also Word v.
North Carolina, 406 F.3d 352, 357 (4th Cir. 1969)
(stating a habeas petition attacking an out-of-state
detainer's validity filed in the prisoner's district
of confinement “would be met with jurisdictional
problems as well as . . . practical
addition to that jurisdictional requirement, practical
considerations make the federal district where the detainer
issued the most appropriate forum for a challenge to the
detainer's validity. E.g., Foley v.
O'Brien, No. 7:09-cv-212, 2009 WL 5178374, at *1
(W.D. Va. Dec. 29, 2009), aff'd, 376 Fed.Appx.
311 (4th Cir. 2010) (per curiam). After all, that is where
all of the material events took place, and where the records
and witnesses are likely to be found; it is simpler and less
expensive to litigate the question there than in the district
where the inmate is housed; and the custodial district is
presumably indifferent to ...