Curry (PS) v. Jones

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
JERITON LAVAR CURRY, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) Case No. CIV-25-114-J
)
WARDEN GOLDEY, )
)
Respondent. )
ORDER
Petitioner, a federal prisoner appearing pro se, filed a Petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241
seeking (1) habeas relief from a federal criminal conviction (Ground One), (2) money damages for
unconstitutional conditions of confinement (Grounds Two and Three), and (3) habeas relief based
on sentence miscalculations (Ground Four). (Pet.) [Doc. No. 1]. The matter was referred for initial
proceedings to United States Magistrate Judge Suzanne Mitchell consistent with 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(B), (C). Judge Mitchell issued her first Report and Recommendation recommending
that Grounds One, Two, and Three be dismissed and on de novo review, the Court adopted that
recommendation. [Doc. No. 22]. The Court then re-referred the matter to Judge Mitchell for
consideration of Ground Four.
Judge Mitchell has now issued a second Report and Recommendation finding that
Petitioner has been transferred to Colorado, depriving this Court of jurisdiction over his custodian.
However, she recommends that the Court dismiss the habeas petition rather than transfer it to that
district. (Rep. & Rec.) [Doc. No. 28]. According to Judge Mitchell, dismissal is warranted as
Case No. 1:25-cv-03957-LTB-RTG Document 31 filed 12/09/25 USDC Colorado
pg 1 of 4

2
Petitioner has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies on Ground Four. See id. at 5-6.
Petitioner has objected [Doc. No. 30]1 triggering de novo review.
I. Analysis
On de novo review, the Court ADOPTS Judge Mitchell’s finding that this Court lacks
jurisdiction over Petitioner’s new custodian but with one modification: the Court will transfer
rather than dismiss the Petition.
When Petitioner filed the instant action, he was housed at FCI El Reno, which is within the
judicial district for the Western District of Oklahoma. See Pet. at 1. However, he has since been
transferred to FCI Florence Low in Florence, Colorado. [Doc. No. 27, Ex. 1]. The Court retains
1 In his current objection, Petitioner expends significant energy focused on alleged violations
related to retaliation, his disciplinary proceedings, related segregation confinement, etc. [Doc. No.
30]. But these discussions are irrelevant. When the Court adopted Judge Mitchell’s first Report
and Recommendation, it noted that Petitioner had three pending motions to supplement. The Court
wrote:
First, Petitioner moved to supplement his § 2241 Petition to add allegations that he
had been retaliated against for the filing, including having been transferred to
disciplinary segregation without due process. [Doc. No. 8]. Then Petitioner moved
to supplement again, generally re-urging his allegation that he was retaliated against
for filing the § 2241 Petition and explaining that he received a false incident report
and “lost 54 days good time” without due process. [Doc. No. 17]. Petitioner also
claimed that officials are intentionally interfering with his mail. See id. Finally,
Petitioner filed a third motion to supplement, again complaining about mail
tampering, lost good time credits, his sentence calculations (involving the RDAP
program), and prison transfer decisions. [Doc. No. 20].
These motions [Doc. Nos. 8, 17, 20] are GRANTED IN PART. That is, Petitioner
may supplement his § 2241 Petition to include, or further explain, his allegations
involving his sentencing administration, loss of good time credits, due process
violations, etc. However, Petitioner should not include any claims involving his
conditions of confinement. Petitioner’s deadline for supplementation is July 30,
2025.
[Doc. No. 22 at 4].
Petitioner never filed the supplementation.
Case No. 1:25-cv-03957-LTB-RTG Document 31 filed 12/09/25 USDC Colorado
pg 2 of 4

3
jurisdiction over the Petition because “jurisdiction attaches on the initial filing for habeas corpus
relief, and it is not destroyed by a transfer of the petitioner and the accompanying custodial
change.” Santillanes v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 754 F.2d 887, 888 (10th Cir. 1985). However,
courts are “limited to granting habeas relief within their respective jurisdictions.” Rumsfeld v.
Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 442 (2004) (citation omitted). Thus, Petitioner’s transfer to Colorado
deprived the Court of power to grant him the habeas relief he seeks. See id.; see also Larry v.
Zook, No. CIV-25-543-PRW, 2025 WL 3041889, at *1 (W.D. Okla. July 3, 2025) (finding the
court lacked the authority to grant habeas relief after petitioner’s transfer as it no longer had
jurisdiction over petitioner’s custodian), adopted, 2025 WL 3039612 (W.D. Okla. Oct. 30, 2025).
Under such circumstances, the Court may dismiss the Petition or transfer it to the district
of confinement. Although Judge Mitchell recommended dismissal, the Court finds that transfer
would be in the interest of justice. Judge Mitchell concluded that Petitioner’s claims were
unexhausted, but he alleges officials interfered with exhaustion efforts. See Pet. at 8 (stating he
was unable to exhaust because officials “are not processing the administrative remedies on
Petitioner’s behalf” (cleaned up)) & Ex. 1 (alleging officials retaliated against him for filing
“administrative remedies”) & [Doc. No. 30 at 9];2 see also Frederick v. Hamilton, No. CIV-24-
837-R, 2025 WL 3002053, at *3 (W.D. Okla. Sept. 30, 2025) (finding petitioner stated a valid
claim that officials thwarted his efforts to exhaust his § 2241 petition and declining to dismiss for
nonexhaustion), adopted, 2025 WL 2997883 (W.D. Okla. Oct. 24, 2025). Transfer to another
district may allow Petitioner an opportunity to cure any exhaustion deficiencies, particularly as he
is no longer at the facility he alleges interfered with the process. Moreover, should Petitioner
2 Judge Mitchell found Petitioner’s allegation of futility in the Petition conclusory. See Rep. &
Rec. at 6. She did not address Petitioner’s continued complaints of interference or retaliation to
determine whether they made exhaustion futile.
Case No. 1:25-cv-03957-LTB-RTG Document 31 filed 12/09/25 USDC Colorado
pg 3 of 4

4
overcome the exhaustion defense, the district court in Colorado would have jurisdiction to order
any relief that might be available.
II. Conclusion
Having carefully reviewed the Petition, Report and Recommendation, and Petitioner’s
objection de novo, the Court ADOPTS Judge Mitchell’s recommendation [Doc. No. 28] as
MODIFIED. This matter is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the District
of Colorado.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 9th day of December, 2025.
Case No. 1:25-cv-03957-LTB-RTG Document 31 filed 12/09/25 USDC Colorado
pg 4 of 4