[DO NOT PUBLISH ]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
MARCH 27, 2012
No. 11-14390
JOHN LEY
Non-Argument Calendar
CLERK
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:11-cv-00031-MP-GRJ
DANIEL K. GARCIA,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
WARDEN,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
________________________
(March 27, 2012)
Before CARNES, HULL and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Daniel K. Garcia, a pro se federal prisoner, appeals the September 8, 2011
order of the district court for the Northern District of Florida (“Northern District”)
denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
After review, we vacate the Northern District’s September 8, 2011 order and
remand with directions that the action be re-transferred back to the Southern
District of Florida (“Southern District”).
Garcia filed this § 2241 petition challenging his 1999 sentence. Garcia filed
his § 2241 petition in the Southern District, the district where he is incarcerated.
The Southern District did not reach the merits of Garcia’s § 2241 petition.
Instead, over Garcia’s objection, the Southern District construed Garcia’s § 2241
petition as a motion to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and transferred
the case to the Northern District, the district where Garcia originally was
convicted and sentenced.
In the Northern District, a magistrate judge issued a report (“R&R”)
recommending that Garcia’s petition be dismissed. Garcia filed an objection,
arguing that his sentencing claim fell within the savings clause of 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255(e) and thus he was entitled to relief “by the appropriate jurisdictional
forum.”
The district court in the Northern District denied Garcia’s § 2241 petition
2
with prejudice. The Northern District first noted that Garcia had demonstrated a
clear intent to file his petition pursuant to § 2241 and that the case was improperly
transferred to the Northern District. The Northern District determined, however,
that re-transferring the case to the Southern District would be futile in light of this
Court’s ruling in Gilbert v. United States, 640 F.3d 1293 (11th Cir. 2011) (en
banc). Instead, the Northern District, applying Gilbert, concluded that Garcia’s
particular sentencing claim did not fall within the savings clause, and thus Garcia
could not challenge his sentence pursuant to § 2241.
On appeal, Garcia continues to insist that what he filed in the Southern
District was a § 2241 petition and that the sentencing claim he raises falls within
the savings clause. Given that Garcia has consistently maintained that he intends
to bring a § 2241 petition, Garcia’s § 2241 petition should not have been re-
characterized by the Southern District as a § 2255 motion. See Wyatt v. United
States, 574 F.3d 455, 460 (7th Cir. 2009) (explaining that courts “must respect a
litigant’s decision to invoke a certain statute”). Moreover, jurisdiction for § 2241
petitions lies only in the district of confinement, in this case the Southern District.
See Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 443, 124 S. Ct. 2711, 2722 (2004); Fed R.
App. P. 22. Therefore, Garcia’s § 2241 petition should not have been transferred
to the Northern District, and the Northern District did not have jurisdiction to
3
reach the merits of savings clause issue.
For these reasons, we vacate the September 8, 2011 order and judgment of
the district court in the Northern District and remand to the Northern District with
directions to re-transfer the action back to the Southern District. After re-transfer,
the Southern District shall then address Garcia’s § 2241 petition, shall not re-
characterize the petition as a § 2255 motion, and shall determine whether the
savings clause applies to Garcia’s sentencing claim, see Gilbert, 643 F.3d 1293.
VACATED AND REMANDED.
4