Nor does our case law support a deviation from the immediate custodian rule here. Rather, the cases cited by Padilla stand for the simple proposition that the immediate physical custodian rule, by its terms, does not apply when a habeas petitioner challenges something other than his present physical confinement. In Braden , for example, an Alabama prisoner filed a habeas petition in the Western District of Kentucky. He did not contest the validity of the Alabama conviction for which he was confined, but instead challenged a detainer lodged against him in Kentucky state court.
For the same reason, Strait v. Laird , U. As in Braden , the immediate custodian rule had no application because petitioner was not challenging any present physical confinement. We have never intimated that a habeas petitioner could name someone other than his immediate physical custodian as respondent simply because the challenged physical custody does not arise out of a criminal conviction. As the statutory language, established practice, and our precedent demonstrate, that is not the case.
At first blush Ex parte Endo , U. After she filed the petition, however, the Government moved her to Utah. While Endo did involve a petitioner challenging her present physical confinement, it did not, as Padilla and Justice Stevens contend, hold that such a petitioner may properly name as respondent someone other than the immediate physical custodian.
Padilla was moved from New York to South Carolina before his lawyer filed a habeas petition on his behalf. His detention is thus not unique in any way that would provide arguable basis for a departure from the immediate custodian rule. We turn now to the second subquestion. We conclude it does not. United States, U. Rule App. See United States v. Hayman, U. The plain language of the habeas statute thus confirms the general rule that for core habeas petitions challenging present physical confinement, jurisdiction lies in only one district: the district of confinement.
Despite this ample statutory and historical pedigree, Padilla contends, and the Court of Appeals held, that the district of confinement rule no longer applies to core habeas challenges. Prior to Braden , we had held that habeas jurisdiction depended on the presence of both the petitioner and his custodian within the territorial confines of the district court. See Ahrens v. Clark, U. Braden itself did not involve such a challenge; rather, Braden challenged his future confinement in Kentucky by suing his Kentucky custodian.
In habeas challenges to present physical confinement, by contrast, the district of confinement is synonymous with the district court that has territorial jurisdiction over the proper respondent. This is because, as we have held, the immediate custodian rule applies to core habeas challenges to present physical custody. By definition, the immediate custodian and the prisoner reside in the same district.
See Braden, U. To the contrary, the facts and holding of Braden dictate the opposite inference. Braden served his Kentucky custodian in Kentucky. Thus, Braden in no way authorizes district courts to employ long-arm statutes to gain jurisdiction over custodians who are outside of their territorial jurisdiction. See Al-Marri , F. Indeed, in stating its holding, Braden favorably cites Schlanger v. Seamans , U. Thus, Braden does not derogate from the traditional district of confinement rule for core habeas petitions challenging present physical custody.
The Court of Appeals also thought Strait supported its long-arm approach to habeas jurisdiction. But Strait offers even less help than Braden. Laird , F. We think not. Strait simply has no application to the present case. Strait predated Braden , so the then-applicable Ahrens rule required that both the petitioner and his custodian be present in California. Here, by contrast, Padilla seeks to challenge his present physical custody in South Carolina.
Because the immediate-custodian rule applies to such habeas challenges, the proper respondent is Commander Marr, who is also present in South Carolina. It was subsequently discovered that he is an American citizen and he was transferred to a military brig in Virginia. The government held him in the brig, in communicado, for six months and insisted that it could do so indefinitely because, like Padilla, Hamdi is an "enemy combatant.
In a decision rendered on Jan. In Hamdi, the Court conceded that Congress had allowed the President "all necessary and proper force" to fight terrorism, but maintained that due process requires that any citizen who is classified as an "enemy combatant" must be given a meaningful opportunity to contest the factual basis for that detention in front of a neutral decisionmaker.
Padilla was being held in South Carolina. On February 28, , the South Carolina District Court concluded that Padilla was also entitled to a hearing before a neutral tribunal to determine whether he was an "unlawful combatant," or he was entitled to be released if no hearing was to be held.
On Sept. The plaintiff appealed to the U. Supreme Court. On Nov. Supreme Court, finally indicted Padilla on terrorism and conspiracy charges. The government requested that Padilla be transported from a military to civilian facility. His original sentence took into account three years he spent in a US navy jail before being charged.
Padilla has alleged he was tortured while imprisoned there. In handing out the longer sentence, Federal District Judge Marcia Cooke, who passed the original year sentence, said she remained concerned about Padilla's treatment in the navy jail in South Carolina.
She rejected prosecutor's requests for a year prison sentence. Padilla was arrested in after returning to Chicago from abroad, where prosecutors said he had spent time at a military training camp in Afghanistan. He was accused of but not charged with plotting to detonate a radioactive "dirty bomb" in a US city. Padilla was imprisoned in South Carolina as an "enemy combatant", the first US citizen to be described this way.
He has alleged he was tortured while in the navy jail by being kept in darkness and isolation, deprived of sleep and religious materials, and kept from family and lawyers. Before his indictment in , Padilla's lawyers challenged the right of the Bush administration to hold him as a combatant without charge.
0コメント