McCord v. Warden FCI Williamsburg
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-03407
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In McCord v. Warden FCI Williamsburg, Judge Lewis transferred McCord’s petition because his current custodian was in New York and denied a certificate of appealability.
Lamont E. McCord’s petition was transferred from the District of South Carolina to the Southern District of New York because his current custodian was located in New York. The Warden of FCI Williamsburg was not required to litigate the petition in the South Carolina court, and McCord’s request for a certificate of appealability was denied.
What happened
In McCord v. Warden FCI Williamsburg, Lamont E. McCord filed a petition under federal law challenging his custody while incarcerated at FCI Williamsburg in South Carolina. He was representing himself.
McCord was later moved to Otisville FCI in New York. The court explained that a federal custody petition must be directed to the person currently holding the prisoner, and that the court must have authority over that custodian. Because McCord’s current custodian was in New York, the South Carolina court did not have authority to consider the petition.
Judge Mary Geiger Lewis transferred the case to the Southern District of New York for further proceedings and denied McCord’s request for a certificate of appealability. The court did not decide the petition’s merits, although it said the petition would likely be dismissed if it considered them.
The detailed version
- McCord v. Warden FCI Williamsburg · No. 1:23-cv-03407
- Laura Swain
- Apr. 20, 2023
Background
Lamont E. McCord filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 against the Warden of FCI Williamsburg. Section 2241 provides a way for a person in federal custody to challenge that custody. The opinion states that McCord was representing himself.
When McCord filed the petition, he was incarcerated at FCI Williamsburg in Salters, South Carolina. He was later moved to Otisville FCI in Otisville, New York. The opinion identifies the warden of Otisville FCI as McCord’s current custodian.
Court’s Analysis
The court relied on Supreme Court precedent and Sections 2242, 2243, and 2241. It explained that the proper respondent in a custody petition is generally the person who currently has custody of the petitioner. A court may grant relief only within its jurisdiction, meaning its legal authority over the relevant respondent. The court concluded that it had jurisdiction only if it had authority over McCord’s current custodian.
Because McCord was no longer in the custody of the Warden of FCI Williamsburg, and because his current custodian was within the jurisdiction of the Southern District of New York, the South Carolina court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the petition’s merits. It also stated that the Warden of FCI Williamsburg could not carry out an order granting relief because McCord was no longer in that warden’s custody.
The court noted that, if it considered the merits, it would likely dismiss the petition. It did not, however, decide the merits in this order.
Disposition
The court ordered that the case be transferred to the Southern District of New York for further proceedings. To the extent McCord requested a certificate of appealability, the court denied that request. The order also notified the parties of a right to appeal within sixty days.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.