UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
______________________________
GEORGE GRIGSBY, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 14-1579 (EGS)
)
MARY THOMAS, )
Judge, Circuit Court of Cook )
County, Illinois, )
)
Respondent. )
______________________________)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pro se petitioner George Grigsby filed what he has labeled
a petition for writ of habeas corpus on September 17, 2014. The
petition names as the respondent Judge Mary Thomas. For
numerous reasons, as detailed below, this Court sua sponte
denies the petition and dismisses this case without prejudice.
First, petitioner has styled his filing as a petition for
writ of habeas corpus. However, he has not provided any facts
suggesting that he is presently in custody nor does he allege
any collateral consequence of previous incarceration that
justifies his petition. See Qassim v. Bush, 466 F.3d 1073,
1076-77 (D.C. Cir. 2006). Second, petitioner has not indicated
how Judge Mary Thomas could be his custodian. See Rumsfeld v.
Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 438-41 (2004) (indicating that the proper
respondent is petitioner’s custodian). Finally, if petitioner
1
is confined at all, his confinement appears to be in Chicago,
Illinois, not Washington, D.C.
Accordingly, this Court does not have jurisdiction over his
habeas petition. See Stokes v. United States Parole Comm’n, 374
F.3d 1235, 1239 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (“[A] district court may not
entertain a habeas petition involving present physical custody
unless the respondent custodian is within its territorial
jurisdiction.”); see also McLaren v. United States, 2 F. Supp.
2d 48, 50 (D.D.C. 1998) (noting that habeas petition pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2254 should be brought in district in which
prisoners are incarcerated).
Petitioner has previously filed five separate habeas
petitions in this Court dated January 22, 2007, September 6,
2007, May 20, 2008, October 11, 2012, and September 18, 2013,
naming the same respondent, appearing to rely on the same
underlying facts, and attaching the same letters to the Illinois
Department of Human Services and Circuit Court of Cook County
that were attached in this case. See, e.g., Grigsby v. Thomas,
Civ. A. No. 07-158 (exhibits to January 22, 2007 Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus). The Court has, on two occasions,
transferred this case to the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois. The Court has also, on three
occasions, dismissed this case without prejudice. In this
Court’s most recent opinion, the Court transferred this case to
2
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.
As part of his new habeas petition, petitioner asks to
transfer the case back to the United States District Court for
the District of Columbia. Petitioner offers no new arguments
for why the case should not be in the Northern District of
Illinois. Even if the Court were to construe his new case as
the equivalent of a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s
order transferring the case, petitioner has not provided any
basis for why this Court has jurisdiction over any habeas claim
because petitioner has not identified a custodian in Washington,
D.C.
To the extent that petitioner is challenging any actions of
Judge Mary Thomas in her official capacity as a judge in his
petition, Judge Thomas is immune from suit. See Stump v.
Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356 (1978); see also Sindram v. Suda,
986 F.2d 1459, 1460 (D.C. Cir. 1993). Petitioner does not
identify what actions respondent took in this case, but he
identified a ruling he disagreed with in his prior habeas
petition. See Grigsby, Civ. A. No. 07-158 (January 22, 2007
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus).
For all the foregoing reasons, petitioner’s habeas petition
is denied and this case is dismissed without prejudice. An
appropriate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
3
Signed: Emmet G. Sullivan
United States District Judge
September 19, 2014
4