Miller v. Mannion

• Decision Date: 11 July 2022
• Docket Number: 1:22-CV-00840
• Parties: AKEEM RICKY MILLER, Petitioner, v. STEVE MANNION, et al., Respondents.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania

AKEEM RICKY MILLER, Petitioner,
v.
STEVE MANNION, et al., Respondents.

No. 1:22-CV-00840

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

July 11, 2022

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Susan E. Schwab United States Magistrate Judge

I. Introduction.

Petitioner Akeem Ricky Miller (“Miller”), who is in immigration detention, filed a “Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief,” challenging his detention. Doc. 1. He also filed an application for an order to show, in which he requests the court “immediately issue an Order to Show Cause against the Respondents and a temporary order staying [his] removal.” Doc. 3 at 6. The United States Attorney responded to the petition for writ of habeas corpus contending that this court lacks jurisdiction because Miller is confined in the Western District of Pennsylvania, not the Middle District of Pennsylvania, and because Miller has not exhausted administrative remedies. See doc. 6 at 1. On June 23, 2022, Miller filed a reply brief arguing, among other things, that he is, in fact, confined in the Middle District, and thus, this court has

1

jurisdiction. Because Miller is confined in the Western District of Pennsylvania, we recommend that the court transfer Miller's petition for a writ of habeas corpus to that district.

II. Discussion.

The petition names as the respondents Steve Mannion, an Immigration Judge; the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”); the United States Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”); DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, Attorney General Merrick Garland; and the Warden of the Moshannon Valley Correctional Facility. But only the Warden of the Moshannon Valley Correctional Facility is a proper respondent.

“The federal habeas statute straightforwardly provides that the proper respondent to a habeas petition is ‘the person who has custody over [the petitioner].'” Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 434 (2004) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2242 and citing 28 U.S.C. § 2243, which provides that “[T]he writ, or order to show cause shall be directed to the person having custody of the person detained”). “The consistent use of the definite article in reference to the custodian indicates that there is generally only one proper respondent to a given prisoner's habeas petition.”

2

Id. Under what is called the “immediate custodian rule,” the warden or superintendent of the prison where the petitioner is held is considered the immediate custodian for purposes of a habeas action. Id. at 442. “The logic of this rule rests in an understanding that ‘the warden . . . has day-to-day control over the prisoner and . . . can produce the actual body.” Anariba v. Dir. Hudson Cnty. Corr. Ctr., 17 F.4th 434, 444 (3d Cir. 2021) (quoting Yi v. Maugans, 24 F.3d 500, 507 (3d Cir. 1994)).

Here, Miller is detained at the Moshannon Valley Processing Center. See doc. 10 at 7.^[1] Thus, only the Warden of the Moshannon Valley Processing Center is the proper respondent. Court and judges may only grant a writ of habeas corpus “within their respective jurisdictions.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a). Thus, whether the

3

Moshannon Valley Processing Center is within the Middle District of Pennsylvania determines whether this court has jurisdiction over Miller's habeas petition.

The United States contends that the Moshannon Valley Processing Center is in the Western District of Pennsylvania. Miller, on the other hand, contends that it is in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. He argues that the Moshannon Valley Processing Center has an address of 555 Geo Drive, Philipsburg, Pennsylvania; Philipsburg is in Centre County; Centre County is in the Middle District of Pennsylvania; and therefore, the Moshannon Valley Processing Center is in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Miller's argument is faulty, however, because although the Moshannon Valley Processing Center has a Philipsburg address, that does not mean that it is in Philipsburg proper or within Centre County. Rather, although having a Philipsburg address, the facility is located in adjacent Clearfield County. See https://gantnews.com/2021/09/29/moshannon-valley-correctional-facility-to-reopen-as-ice-center/ (last visited July 8, 2022) (describing the facility as “near Philipsburg” and discussing proposed contracts with the Clearfield County Commissioner's, the GEO Group, and ICE regarding the facility); https://www. wesa.fm/courts-justice/2021 -09-30/a-new-immigrant-detention-center-will-open-in -former-clearfield-county-prison (last visited July 8, 2022)...