Sweat v. White, 87-6080
| Decision Date | 23 September 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 87-6080,87-6080 |
| Citation | 829 F.2d 1121 |
| Parties | Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Joseph Thomas SWEAT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. O. I. WHITE, Respondent-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, District Judge. (C/A No. 86-374-AM)
Joseph Thomas Sweat, pro se.
Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINSON and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.
Joseph T. Sweat appeals from the district court's order dismissing, without prejudice, his 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2241 petition. At the time that the petition was filed, Sweat was confined at the Federal Correctional Institution in Petersburg, Virginia located within the Eastern District of Virginia. He was subsequently transferred to the Federal Correctional Institution in Ashland, Kentucky. The court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over the petition, because neither Sweat nor his custodian was located within the Eastern District of Virginia. It further concluded that, even assuming jurisdiction existed, Sweat was not entitled to relief.
We find that the district court had jurisdiction to consider Sweat's petition. 'It is well-established that 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 Commission, 754 F.2d 887, 888 (10th Cir. 1985). Because the Eastern District of Virginia had jurisdiction over the petition when Seat filed it, that jurisdiction was not defeated by Sweat's subsequent transfer to the Federal Correctional Institution in Ashland, Kentucky.
We agree with the district court that Sweat's claims that his transfer into federal custody was illegal, and that his parole eligibility should not be reviewed by the U.S. Parole Commission lack merit. While the district court did not address Sweat's due process claims regarding this transfer from Lorton Reformatory to the District of Columbia Detention Center, and his assignment to maximum security while at the District of Columbia Detention Center, these claims should be brought in the courts of the District of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gon v. Holder
...relief, and it is not destroyed by a transfer of the petitioner and the accompanying custodial change.” Sweat v. White, 829 F.2d 1121, 1987 WL 44445, at *1 (4th Cir.1987) (unpublished) (citing Santillanes v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 754 F.2d 887, 888 (10th Cir.1985)); see also United States v. L......
-
Gon v. Holder
...relief, and it is not destroyed by a transfer of the petitioner and the accompanying custodial change.” Sweat v. White, 829 F.2d 1121, 1987 WL 44445, at *1 (4th Cir.1987) (unpublished) (citing Santillanes v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 754 F.2d 887, 888 (10th Cir.1985)); see also United States v. L......
-
Terry v. Stewart
...district. See Santillanes v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 754 F.2d 887, 888 (10th Cir 1985); see also Sweat v. White, 829 F.2d 1121 (4th Cir. 1987) (unpublished table opinion), 1987 WL 44445, at *1. ("It is well-established that jurisdiction attaches on the initialfiling for habeas corpus relief, an......
-
Johnson v. ICE, CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:19-CV-672-P
...States Parole Commission, 754 F.2d 887, 888 (10th Cir. 1985); Francis v. Rison, 894 F.2d 353, 354 (9th Cir. 1990); Sweat v. White, 829 F.2d 1121, *1 (4th Cir. 1987); Weeks v. Wyrick, 638 F.2d 690, 692 (8th Cir. 1981); McClure v. Hopper, 577 F.2d 938, 939-40 (5th Cir. 1978), cert. den., 439 ......