Palmer v. San Francisco City Jail Sheriff
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:22-cv-09047
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
Palmer v. San Francisco City Jail Sheriff: Judge Gilliam transferred Palmer’s custody challenge to Virginia because California lacked jurisdiction over his current custodian.
James Dion Palmer’s custody challenge was transferred from the Northern District of California to the Eastern District of Virginia; the court did not decide the merits of his claims.
What happened
In Palmer v. San Francisco City Jail Sheriff, James Dion Palmer, representing himself, challenged his custody under a federal law allowing certain custody challenges. He alleged problems involving a judge and DNA voice-recognition evidence after his extradition to Virginia on terrorism charges.
The court said it was unclear whether Palmer was awaiting trial or serving a sentence, or whether he challenged federal or state custody. It did not decide those issues or the substance of his claims. Instead, it concluded that the proper place for a challenge to his current physical custody was the district where he was confined, in Virginia, and that the San Francisco respondent was not the proper custodian.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. ordered the action transferred to the Eastern District of Virginia and directed the clerk to close the case.
The detailed version
- Palmer v. San Francisco City Jail Sheriff · No. 4:22-cv-09047
- Haywood Gilliam
- Dec. 27, 2022
Background
James Dion Palmer, who was incarcerated at Norfolk County Jail in Norfolk, Virginia, filed this self-represented action seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Palmer alleged that he had been extradited from San Francisco to Alexandria, Virginia, on terrorism charges involving threats to bomb Alexandria City Hall and its courthouse. He identified two due-process claims: problems involving a judge or substitute judge, and a problem concerning DNA evidence and voice recognition.
The court noted that Palmer did not explain whether he was a pretrial detainee or incarcerated following a conviction. He also did not say whether he was challenging the execution of a federal sentence or custody under a state sentence. The court explained that § 2241 can apply to challenges involving execution of a federal sentence and to certain state-custody situations, including pretrial detention and detention while awaiting extradition.
Venue and Jurisdiction
The court concluded that venue was not proper in the Northern District of California because Palmer appeared to be challenging his present physical custody. For a core custody challenge, the district of confinement is generally the district whose court has territorial jurisdiction over the immediate custodian—the official who can provide the requested relief. Palmer was no longer housed at the San Francisco facility and was not in the custody of San Francisco Sheriff Paul Miyamoto. The court identified his current custodian as Norfolk Sheriff Patrick W. McDermott and stated that it did not have jurisdiction over that custodian.
Disposition
The court ordered that the action be transferred to the Eastern District of Virginia under 28 U.S.C. § 127(a). It directed the clerk to close the case. The order did not decide whether Palmer’s due-process claims were valid or otherwise reach the merits of his custody challenge.
Classification
This is a procedural order because the court transferred the case based on venue and jurisdiction over the proper custodian without deciding the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.