Conlin v. United States of America

Background

Jeremy L. Conlin filed a self-represented petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a procedure used to challenge certain aspects of custody or governmental restraint. The opinion says he appeared to be challenging sex-offender registration requirements connected to a 2005 sex-offense conviction in Montgomery County, Texas. He asserted that the Texas conviction was exempt from the federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act’s registration requirements but that a 2021 Department of Justice rule required him to register.

Conlin provided a mailing address in Texas but stated that he was living in Maryland. He also mentioned brief temporary employment in New York. The opinion states that he had pleaded guilty to the Texas offense and received a ten-year prison sentence. It also says he asserted that he had been convicted of an unspecified crime in the Western District of Texas in 2019 and received eight months in prison and seven years of probation; the court could not find a record of that matter.

Transfer decision

The court applied 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which permits a district court to transfer a civil action to another district where it could have been brought when the transfer would serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and the interests of justice. The court concluded that transfer was appropriate because Conlin’s relevant conviction and sentence occurred in Montgomery County, Texas, and his challenge appeared to arise from registration requirements based on that conviction. Montgomery County is within the Southern District of Texas.

The court did not decide whether Conlin should be allowed to proceed without paying filing fees. It also expressly took no position on whether the filing should be treated as a Section 2241 petition or interpreted in another way. The opinion did not decide whether the registration requirements were lawful or whether Conlin was required to register.

Disposition

The court ordered the clerk to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. No summons or order to answer was to issue from the Southern District of New York, and the order closed the case there. The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied payment-free status for purposes of an appeal.