Faulkner v. US Marshal Service, District of Maryland

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Alvin Faulkner
v. 	Case No. 20-cv-177-SM
United States Marshal Service
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner Alvin Faulkner, who is incarcerated at the
Western Correctional Institution in Cumberland, Maryland
(“WCI”), has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Doc.
No. 1) in this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 	The petition
is before the undersigned Magistrate Judge for preliminary
review to determine whether it is facially valid and may
proceed. 	See 28 U.S.C. § 2243; Rule 4, Rules Governing Section
2254 Cases (“§ 2254 Rules”); see also § 2254 Rule 1(b)
(authorizing court to apply § 2254 Rules to § 2241 petitions);
LR 4.3(d)(4).
Preliminary Review Standard
Pursuant to § 2254 Rule 4, a judge is required to examine a
petition for habeas relief and, if “it plainly appears from the
petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not
entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss
the petition.” 	Id. 	“Federal courts are authorized to dismiss
Case 1:20-cv-00177-SM Document 4 Filed 06/24/21 Page 1 of 4

2
summarily any habeas petition that appears legally insufficient
on its face.” 	McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994).
The court construes [Petitioner]’s pleadings liberally,
considering his pro se status. 	See Dutil v. Murphy, 550 F.3d
154, 158 (1st Cir. 2008).
Background
Mr. Faulkner’s claims are not entirely clear, but it
appears that he is alleging that he entered into an agreement to
provide the rights to a federal patent he owned to the United
States Attorney General in exchange for a pardon in his Maryland
state criminal case, and unconditional release from Maryland
state custody. 	Mr. Faulkner alleges that the United States
Marshals Service (“USMS”) attempted to execute his pardon, but
was prevented from doing so by a state employee. 	He asks this
court to enter an order effectuating his release from Maryland
state custody.
Discussion
I. 	Proper Respondent
Mr. Faulkner has identified the USMS as the respondent to
this action. 	The proper respondent to a habeas petition is the
warden of the facility in which he is presently incarcerated.
Case 1:20-cv-00177-SM Document 4 Filed 06/24/21 Page 2 of 4

3
See Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 434-35 (2004).
Accordingly, the proper respondent here is the WCI Warden.
II. 	Personal Jurisdiction
“[W]ith respect to habeas petitions ‘designed to relieve an
individual from oppressive confinement,’” a writ of habeas
corpus is “‘issueable only in the district of confinement.’”
Padilla, 542 U.S. at 442. 	That “district off confinement rule”
requires that the court issuing the writ “have personal
jurisdiction over the person who holds the petitioner in
custody.” 	Vasquez v. Reno, 233 F.3d 688, 690 (1st Cir. 2000);
see also Padilla, 542 U.S. at 442; 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a) (limiting
district courts to granting habeas relief “within their
respective jurisdictions”).
WCI is not within the territorial jurisdiction of this
court. 	This court, therefore, lacks the personal jurisdiction
over the WCI Warden, Mr. Faulkner’s immediate custodian. 	As
such personal jurisdiction is necessary for this court to order
the relief Mr. Faulkner seeks, the district judge should dismiss
this petition in its entirety for lack of personal jurisdiction,
without prejudice to Mr. Faulkner’s ability to assert his claims
in the District of Maryland. 	See Padilla, 542 U.S. at 446-47;
Vasquez, 233 F.3d at 691.
Case 1:20-cv-00177-SM Document 4 Filed 06/24/21 Page 3 of 4

4
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the district judge should
dismiss Mr. Faulkner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus
(Doc. No. 1) without prejudice. 	Any objections to this Report
and Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days of receipt
of this notice. 	See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). 	The fourteen-day
period may be extended upon motion. 	Failure to file specific
written objections to the Report and Recommendation within the
specified time waives the right to appeal the district court’s
order. 	See Santos-Santos v. Torres-Centeno, 842 F.3d 163, 168
(1st Cir. 2016).
__________________________
Andrea K. Johnstone
United States Magistrate Judge
June 24, 2021
cc: 	Alvin Faulkner, pro se
Case 1:20-cv-00177-SM Document 4 Filed 06/24/21 Page 4 of 4