McElroy v. Department of Corrections

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
JEREL MCELROY,
Petitioner,
v. Civ. No. 25-0096-KG-GBW
ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Jerel McElroy’s Amended 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Habeas Petition. (Doc. 2) (Petition). McElroy is a state prisoner in Arkansas and is proceeding
pro se. His Petition raises claims under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He appears to challenge his pretrial
detention and the alleged failure to notify him of pending charges. (Doc. 2) at 1-2. McElroy
also alleges he is falsely incarcerated and seeks a time-served sentence. Id.
The Supreme Court holds that “the proper respondent to a habeas petition is the person who
has custody over [the petitioner],” i.e., the “warden of the facility where the prisoner is being held.”
Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 434 (2004). McElroy is being held at the Southwest Arkansas
Community Correction Center in Texarkana, Arkansas (within Miller County). See Doc. 2 at 1.
His “physical custodian” is not “within the jurisdiction of th[is] District Court.” Rumsfeld, 542
U.S. at 440. Hence, the Petition must be resolved in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Arkansas, where McElroy is incarcerated. Id.; see also 28 U.S.C. § 83(b)
(Western District of Arkansas, Texarkana Division includes Miller County).
District Courts may sua sponte consider dismissal or transfer when jurisdictional defects
are clear from the face of the proceeding. See Trujillo v. Williams, 465 F.3d 1210, 1217 (10th
Case 4:25-cv-04090-SOH Document 4 Filed 10/21/25 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Cir. 2006). In lieu of dismissal, and in the interest of justice, the Court may transfer a case to
any district where venue and jurisdiction are proper. See Johnson v. Christopher, 233 Fed.
App’x 852, 854 (10th Cir. 2007) (“To be sure, the district court has discretion … to transfer [an
inmate’s] case” sua sponte). To determine whether a transfer is in the interest of justice, courts
consider: “whether the claims would be time barred if filed anew in the proper forum, whether the
claims alleged are likely to have merit, and whether the claims were filed in good faith….” In re
Cline, 531 F.3d 1249, 1251 (10th Cir. 2008). See also Faulkenburg v. Weir, 350 Fed. App’x
208, 210 (10th Cir. 2009) (applying the same factors to a transfer). There is no indication that
the claims are time-barred. An allegation that McElroy’s detention is unconstitutional and that
he did not receive notice of the charges may survive initial review. And, while McElroy directs
his concerns to the wrong Court, this is a common mistake for pro se litigants. The Court finds
no evidence of bad faith.
For these reasons, the Court will transfer this case to the United States District Court for
the Western District of Arkansas, Texarkana Division. McElroy is reminded that all further
filings must be submitted to that Court.
IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk’s Office shall transfer this case to the United States
District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, Texarkana Division.
/s/Kenneth J. Gonzales___________________
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
• Please note that this document has been
electronically filed. To verify its authenticity,
please refer to the Digital File Stamp on the
NEF (Notice of Electronic Filing)
accompanying this document.
Electronically filed documents can be found
on the Court’s PACER public access system.
Case 4:25-cv-04090-SOH Document 4 Filed 10/21/25 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>