Crookedarm v. Tribal Courts
| Ian Jack Crookedarm |
| Tribal Courts |
| 1:2022cv00459 |
| November 7, 2022 |
| US District Court for the District of Idaho |
| Debora K Grasham |
| Habeas Corpus (General) |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 14, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 10 Letter from Ian Crookedarm re recanting complaint(alw) |
Filing 9
ORDER of Conditional Filing - caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (alw)
|
| Filing 8 *DISREGARD, FILED IN ERROR*NOTICE of Assignment to Magistrate Judge and Requirement for Consent sent to counsel for Ian Jack Crookedarm re #1 Complaint Consent/Objection to Magistrate due by 1/9/2023. (alw) Modified on 11/8/2022 (alw). |
| Filing 7 Case transferred in from District of Connecticut; Case Number 3:22-cv-01092. Original file certified copy of transfer order and docket sheet received. |
|
Filing 6
ORDER transferring action to the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho.Petitioner, who appears to be confined in a tribal correctional facility in Fort Hall, Idaho, has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2241. ECF No. #1 . On September 2, 2022, the Court entered an order directing Petitioner to show cause why this action should not be transferred to the District of Idaho. ECF No. 4. The Court explained that the U.S. Supreme Court "has made clear that '[w]henever a [28 U.S.C.] 2241 habeas petitioner seeks to challenge his present physical custody within the United States, he should name his warden as respondent and file the petition in the district of confinement,'" under what is known as the immediate custodian rule. Id. (citing Skaftouros v. United States, 667 F.3d 144, 146 n.1 (2d Cir. 2011) (alterations in original)). In a letter to the Court dated September 15, 2022, Petitioner appeared to indicate that he agrees, at least in part, with the case law the Court cited in its order to show cause, but he explained that he has "no help" and that he thought he sent his petition to an address at the top of the form he submitted. ECF No. #5 at 1-2. Although Petitioner's letter lacks clarity, his statements suggest that he mistakenly filed his petition in the incorrect district. In addition, the return address on Petitioner's letter is a Fort Hall, Idaho post office box for Shoshone-Bannock Tribal Corrections, which suggests that Petitioner is, indeed, incarcerated in Idaho. See id.Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1406(a), "[t]he district court of a district in which is filed a case laying venue in the wrong division or district shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or division in which it could have been brought." The decision of whether to dismiss or transfer a case "lies within the sound discretion of the district court." Minnette v. Time Warner, 997 F.2d 1023, 1026 (2d Cir. 1993); see also Garland v. Carter, No. 22-CV-03462 (DG) (CLP), 2022 WL 5110953, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 4, 2022) ("A transfer under Section 1406(a) may be made... by a court sua sponte."). Where a 2241 petitioner has filed his petition in a jurisdiction other than the jurisdiction in which he is confined, a court may transfer the petition to the jurisdiction in which the petitioner is being held. See Lemus-Pineda v. Whittaker, 354 F. Supp. 3d 473, 475-76 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (transferring 2241 petition pursuant to 1406(a) after finding that "the interests of justice will be served by transferring the petition to [the jurisdiction where the petitioner is being held] rather than dismissing it entirely").Given that Petitioner appears to be incarcerated in Idaho, the Court finds that venue is improper in this district. Moreover, given that the filing of this action in this district appears to be the product of a good-faith mistake by a pro se litigant, the Court further finds that transfer of venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1406(a), rather than dismissal, is in the interest of justice. Cf. Hendrickson v. United States, 791 F.3d 354, 363 (2d Cir. 2015) (holding that transfer pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1631 was in the interest of justice where, among other things, there was "no evidence" that the decision to bring suit in a district court that lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the action "was the product of anything other than a good-faith mistake or error in interpreting the law"). Accordingly, the Clerk is directed to transfer this action to the District of Idaho.Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 10/25/2022. (Kuegler, Adam)
|
| Filing 5 Letter from Ian Jack Crookedarm Dated 9/15/2022. (Attachments: #1 Envelope) (Mendez, D) |
| Set Deadline: Show Cause Response due by 9/30/2022. (Bozek, M.) |
|
Filing 4
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Petitioner, who appears to be confined in a tribal correctional facility in Fort Hall, Idaho, has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. Section 2241. The U.S. Supreme Court "has made clear that '[w]henever a [28 U.S.C.] 2241 habeas petitioner seeks to challenge his present physical custody within the United States, he should name his warden as respondent and file the petition in the district of confinement,'" under what is known as the immediate custodian rule. Skaftouros v. United States, 667 F.3d 144, 146 n.1 (2d Cir. 2011) (alterations in original) (quoting Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 447 (2004)). The question of the proper location for a habeas petition under the immediate custodian rule is "best understood as a question of personal jurisdiction or venue," as opposed to a limitation on the subject matter jurisdiction of a court. Padilla, 542 U.S. at 451 (Kennedy, J., concurring); see Cruz v. Decker, No. 18-CV-9948 (GBD) (OTW), 2019 WL 4038555, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2019), aff'd, No. 18 Civ. 9948 (GBD) (OTW), 2019 WL 6318627 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 26, 2019) (collecting cases and noting that "[c]ourts have found that Padilla's 'immediate custodian rule is a venue rule'"). Although it appears Petitioner may be able to bring a habeas corpus action in federal court to challenge his detention by order of an Indian tribe pursuant to 25 U.S.C. Section 1303, the petition does not explain why the petition was filed in federal district court in Connecticut, rather than in Idaho's federal district court. By September 30, 2022, Petitioner shall show cause why this matter should not be transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 09/02/2022. (Kuegler, Adam)
|
|
Filing 3
STANDING PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 8/29/2022. (Mendez, D)
|
|
Filing 2
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 8/29/2022. (Mendez, D)
|
| Filing 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by Ian Jack Crookedarm. (Attachments: #1 Envelope, #2 Exhibit)(Mendez, D) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Idaho District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Crookedarm v. Tribal Courts | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner: Ian Jack Crookedarm | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Respondent: Tribal Courts | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
