Coleman v. Carter

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
RASHAUD L. COLEMAN, 	)
)
Petitioner, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. CIV-25-1326-SLP
)
T. CARTER, Warden, 	)
)
Respondent. 	)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner Rashaud L. Coleman, a federal prisoner appearing pro se, filed a Petition
for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”) challenging the execution
of his sentence. Doc. 1. United States District Judge Scott L. Palk referred this matter to
the undersigned Magistrate Judge in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)-(C).
Because the Court can grant no relief to Petitioner, the undersigned recommends the Court
dismiss the Petition as moot.
I. 	Screening
The Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts
(“Habeas Rules”) are applicable to habeas petitions brought under § 2241. 	Habeas
Rule 1(b); Boutwell v. Keating, 399 F.3d 1203, 1210 n.2 (10th Cir. 2005). Habeas Rule 4
requires the Court to promptly conduct a preliminary review of habeas petitions. A petition
should be dismissed “if it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that
the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” Id. (citation modified)
Case 5:25-cv-01326-SLP Document 7 Filed 12/05/25 Page 1 of 5

2
II. 	Petitioner’s Background and Claim
Petitioner is serving a sentence in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons
(“BOP”) from a conviction in the Eastern District of Tennessee. Doc. 1 at 1. He challenges
BOP’s calculation of the length of his federal sentence and seeks application of certain jail
credit from an earlier state sentence. Id. at 2-3, 6-7. 	When he filed the Petition, Petitioner
was incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution (“FCI”) in El Reno, Oklahoma. Id.
at 1. On November 14, 2025, soon after the Petition was filed, the Court ordered Petitioner
either to pay his $5.00 filing fee or to file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Doc. 4.
On December 3, 2025, the Order to cure payment was returned to the Court as
undeliverable mail. 	Doc. 5. 	The undersigned then reviewed the BOP’s Inmate Locator
and learned Petitioner has been transferred from FCI El Reno and is now housed at FCI
Yazoo City Low II, in Yazoo City, Mississippi.1
FCI Yazoo City Low is in Yazoo County,
Mississippi, within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Mississippi. See 28 U.S.C. § 104(b)(1).
III. 	Analysis
“A petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 attacks the execution of a sentence rather than
its validity and must be filed in the district where the prisoner is confined.” Bradshaw v.
Story, 86 F.3d 164, 166 (10th Cir. 1996); see also Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 443
(2004) (explaining habeas petitions challenging present confinement must be filed in “the
1 The 	undersigned 	takes 	judicial 	notice 	of 	the 	BOP’s 	Inmate 	Locator 	at
https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ (last visited Dec. 5, 2025). See United States v. Muskett,
970 F.3d 1233, 1237 n.4 (10th Cir. 2020) (taking judicial notice of inmate’s status
according to the Inmate Locator).
Case 5:25-cv-01326-SLP Document 7 Filed 12/05/25 Page 2 of 5

3
district of confinement”). 	Additionally, a § 2241 petition must name as the proper
respondent “the person who has custody over the petitioner,” which is “the warden of the
facility where the prisoner is being held.” Padilla, 542 U.S. at 434-35 (citation modified).
When Petitioner filed his Petition, he was in custody at FCI El Reno within the judicial
district for the Western District of Oklahoma. Doc. 1 at 1. He, therefore, filed the Petition
in the proper district.
Though Petitioner has been transferred, the Court retains 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); cf. Padilla, 542
U.S. at 441 (“When the Government moves a habeas petitioner after [he] properly files a
petition naming [his] immediate custodian, the District Court retains jurisdiction and may
direct the writ to any respondent within its jurisdiction who has legal authority to effectuate
the prisoner’s release.” (citation modified)). 	Petitioner’s transfer, however, deprives the
Court of power to grant Petitioner the habeas relief he seeks. “District courts are limited
to granting habeas relief ‘within their respective jurisdictions.’” Padilla, 542 U.S. at 442
(quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a)). 	Because of this statutory limitation, a district court may
not grant habeas relief unless it has jurisdiction over the petitioner’s custodian. 	Id. 	And
jurisdiction over 	a petitioner’s 	custodian 	“lies in 	only one district: the 	district 	of
confinement.” Id. at 443.
Here, Petitioner has been transferred from within the jurisdiction of this Court and
is now housed at a BOP facility within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court
Case 5:25-cv-01326-SLP Document 7 Filed 12/05/25 Page 3 of 5

4
for the Southern District of Mississippi. 	This Court lacks jurisdiction over Petitioner’s
current custodian and can provide no relief to Petitioner. Accordingly, the Petition is moot
because “an event occur[red] while [the] case [was] pending”—that is, Petitioner’s transfer
to FCI Yazoo City Low II—“that makes it impossible for the court to grant any effectual
relief whatever to a prevailing party.” Church of Scientology of Cal. v. United States, 506
U.S. 9, 12 (1982) (citation modified).
Therefore, the undersigned recommends that the Court dismiss the Petition without
prejudice as moot. 	See, e.g., Johnston v. United States, No. CIV-20-980-D, 2021 WL
674018, at *1 (W.D. Okla. Feb. 22, 2021) (dismissing a § 2241 petition without prejudice
as moot when petitioner was incarcerated in the Western District of Oklahoma when he
filed the petition but was later transferred to an Arizona facility); Naranjo-Delgado v.
United States, No. CIV-18-1061-R, 2019 WL 2342689, at *1 (W.D. Okla. June 3, 2019)
(dismissing a § 2241 petition without prejudice as moot when petitioner was incarcerated
in the Western District of Oklahoma when he filed the petition but was later transferred to
a Texas facility); Gorbey v. Warden of Fed. Transfer Ctr., 580 F. App’x 682, 682-83 (10th
Cir. 2014) (affirming this Court’s dismissal of a § 2241 petition as moot where petitioner
was transferred from the Western District of Oklahoma to Kentucky after filing the
petition); Griffin v. Kastner, 507 F. App’x 801, 802-03 (10th Cir. 2013) (affirming this
Court’s dismissal of a § 2241 petition as moot where petitioner who had been transferred
from the 	Western 	District of 	Oklahoma to Missouri was 	“outside the ‘district 	of
confinement’ and therefore outside the scope of [this Court’s] habeas jurisdiction” (quoting
Padilla, 542 U.S. at 442)).
Case 5:25-cv-01326-SLP Document 7 Filed 12/05/25 Page 4 of 5

5
IV. 	Recommendation and Notice of Right to Object
For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned recommends that the Court DISMISS
the 	Petition 	without 	prejudice 	as 	moot. 	If 	the 	Court 	adopts 	this 	Report 	and
Recommendation, Petitioner may refile this action in the proper judicial district, which
would be the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi if he
remains incarcerated there. 	Petitioner is advised of his right to object to this Report and
Recommendation. See 28 U.S.C. § 636. Any objection must be filed with the Clerk of the
Court not later than December 29, 2025. 	See id. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2).
Failure to object timely waives the right to appellate review of the factual and legal issues
addressed in this Report and Recommendation. See Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d 656,
659 (10th Cir. 1991).
This Report and Recommendation disposes of all issues referred to the undersigned
Magistrate Judge in this matter.
ENTERED this 5th day of December, 2025.
Case 5:25-cv-01326-SLP Document 7 Filed 12/05/25 Page 5 of 5