Mullings v. Finley
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:23-cv-09603
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Mullings v. Finley, Judge Engelmayer proposed transferring Mullings’s prison-deposition petition to Pennsylvania and requested his response.
Kyle T. Mullings, who sought an order requiring Scott Finley, the warden of FCI Schuylkill, to produce him for a deposition; the proposed transfer would move the case from the Southern District of New York to the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
What happened
Mullings v. Finley concerns Kyle T. Mullings’s request for a court order requiring the warden of his federal prison in Pennsylvania to produce him for a deposition in a New York state personal-injury case. He filed the request under a federal law allowing courts to bring prisoners to court to testify.
Judge Engelmayer explained that habeas petitions generally must be filed in the federal district where the prisoner is confined. Because Mullings was confined at the Federal Correctional Institution in Schuylkill, Pennsylvania, the Southern District of New York questioned whether it was the proper court to hear his request.
Judge Engelmayer proposed transferring the case to the Middle District of Pennsylvania under the federal venue-transfer statute. The court ordered Mullings to file a letter by November 7, 2023, responding to that proposed transfer; the opinion does not state that the transfer had already occurred.
The detailed version
- Mullings v. Finley · No. 1:23-cv-09603
- Paul Engelmayer
- Nov. 3, 2023
Background
Kyle T. Mullings filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He is incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution in Schuylkill, Pennsylvania, where he is serving a 12-year prison term for various offenses. Mullings is also the plaintiff in a pending New York state-court action seeking damages for personal injuries from a July 19, 2016 automobile accident.
Mullings asked the court to issue a writ requiring Scott Finley, the warden of FCI Schuylkill, to produce him for a deposition scheduled for December 13, 2023. A writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum is a court order used to bring a prisoner to court to testify. The petition sought that relief under Section 2241.
Court’s analysis
Judge Engelmayer explained that federal district courts may grant habeas relief only within their respective jurisdictions. Relying on the general rule that jurisdiction over a prisoner’s custodian lies in the federal district where the prisoner is confined, the court stated that the relevant district for FCI Schuylkill is the Middle District of Pennsylvania, not the Southern District of New York.
The court acknowledged that earlier precedent was not entirely clear about the territorial reach of a testimonial writ. It nevertheless stated that courts routinely transfer Section 2241 petitions filed in an improper venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).
Ruling and current status
The court proposed, on its own initiative, to transfer the case to the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Because the deposition deadline was approaching, the court ordered Mullings to file a docket letter by November 7, 2023, responding to the proposed transfer. The opinion does not state that the court ultimately transferred the case or ruled on whether Mullings was entitled to the requested deposition order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.