Campbell v. Warden FCI Schuylkill

Full title:GEORGE CAMPBELL, Petitioner, v. WARDEN FCI SCHUYLKILL, Respondent.

Court:United States District Court, S.D. New York

Case no: 22-CV-7744 (LTS)

Date published: Sep 15, 2022


  • The petitioner, currently incarcerated at FCI Schuylkill in Pennsylvania, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. ยง 2241.
  • He alleges that while confined at FCI Otisville, he was subjected to disciplinary action for possession of a weapon but was denied due process in his disciplinary proceedings.
  • The petitioner seeks to expunge the incident from his prison record and restore his good time credits.


  • Whether the Court has jurisdiction to entertain the habeas corpus petition challenging the execution of the petitioner’s federal sentence, considering the location of his confinement.


  • The Court determines that jurisdiction for a habeas corpus action challenging a petitioner’s physical confinement generally lies in the judicial district of his confinement.
  • As the petitioner is currently incarcerated at FCI Schuylkill in Pennsylvania, located within the jurisdiction of the Middle District of Pennsylvania, the Court transfers the petition to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania in the interest of justice.
  • The Clerk of Court is directed to effect the transfer.
  • The determination of whether the petitioner should be permitted to proceed further without payment of fees is to be made by the transferee court.
  • A certificate of appealability is denied as the petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
  • In forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal, certifying that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith.


  • The Court orders the transfer of the action to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania and closes the case in its court.
  • The petitioner is directed to proceed in accordance with the orders of the transferee court regarding payment of fees or in forma pauperis status for further proceedings.

Related Post

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

5 × 5 =