Joshua Mazique Burton v. Glenn A. Brenner

Holding: A Section 2241 petition must name the petitioner's custodian as respondent, so dismissal was vacated and the case remanded to permit amendment to name the proper respondent.
Standard: de novo review of jurisdiction; proper-respondent rule under Section 2241
Vote: Per curiam decision vacating dismissal for want of jurisdiction and remanding for amendment of the petition.
Practical effect: The case returns to the district court, where Burton must be given an opportunity to amend his Section 2241 petition to name the proper custodian before the court proceeds further.

The Fifth Circuit vacated the dismissal of a federal pretrial detainee's Section 2241 petition. The court held the district court should allow amendment because the petition named the wrong respondent.

Background

Joshua Burton, a federal pretrial detainee, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. Section 2241 alleging that his right to a preliminary hearing had been waived without his consent because his former attorney, Glenn Brenner, forged his signature in the criminal case. Burton named Brenner as the respondent. The district court dismissed for want of jurisdiction because Burton was then detained within the Western District of Texas.

The court’s reasoning

The Fifth Circuit reviewed jurisdiction de novo. It explained that under Section 2241 the proper respondent in a habeas case is the person who has custody over the petitioner. Because Burton named his former attorney rather than a custodial official, the district court could not accurately determine whether the proper custodian could be reached by service of process. On that basis, the court vacated the dismissal and remanded so Burton could amend his petition to name the proper respondent, with additional proceedings as necessary.

The federal habeas statute straightforwardly provides that the proper respondent to a habeas petition is ‘the person who has custody over [the petitioner].’

Rumsfield v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 434 (2004)

What it means going forward

The case returns to the district court, where Burton must be given an opportunity to amend his Section 2241 petition to name the proper custodian before the court proceeds further.