James v. Peters
5:25-cv-00295
| W.D. Okla. | Jun 30, 2025Background
- Calvin James, formerly incarcerated at FCI El Reno (Oklahoma), filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma.
- James was transferred to FCI Hazelton (West Virginia) while his petition was pending.
- A magistrate judge recommended dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, as habeas petitions under § 2241 must be filed in the district of the petitioner’s current confinement.
- Transfer rather than dismissal was considered, but the magistrate found the interests of justice did not require transfer due to lack of exhaustion of administrative remedies and outstanding deficiencies in James’s fee filings.
- James objected, claiming lack of notice related to his IFP status due to mail issues and futility of exhaustion.
- The District Court conducted de novo review, agreed with the magistrate judge, and dismissed James’s petition without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction — Proper forum for § 2241 petition | James filed in district of original confinement | Jurisdiction is proper only in current district | Dismiss – district now lacks jurisdiction |
| Need to transfer vs. dismiss without prejudice | Implicitly prefers transfer if merit exists | Interests of justice do not require transfer | Dismissal without prejudice is appropriate |
| Exhaustion of administrative remedies | Claims exhaustion is futile and institution negligent | James concedes he did not exhaust remedies | Failure to exhaust negates merits; no relief |
| Procedural default (IFP deficiencies due to notice) | Did not receive order to cure IFP due to transfer | Deficiencies not cured as ordered | No basis to excuse procedural deficiencies |
Key Cases Cited
- Bradshaw v. Story, 86 F.3d 164 (10th Cir. 1996) (habeas petitions under § 2241 must be filed in the district of the petitioner's confinement)
- Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426 (2004) (the "proper respondent" to a § 2241 petition is the warden of the facility where the prisoner is held)
- Trujillo v. Williams, 465 F.3d 1210 (10th Cir. 2006) (district court has discretion to transfer or dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, depending on interest of justice)
- Garza v. Davis, 596 F.3d 1198 (10th Cir. 2010) (exhaustion of administrative remedies is a prerequisite for § 2241 habeas relief)