MORGAN v. JOE BIDEN, No. 1:2023cv02740 - Document 3 (D.D.C. 2023)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM AND OPINION. Signed by Judge Dabney L. Friedrich on 09/26/2023. (zcb)

Download PDF
MORGAN v. JOE BIDEN Doc. 3 Case 1:23-cv-02740-UNA Document 3 Filed 09/26/23 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DAVID BRIAN MORGAN, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Petitioner, v. JOE BIDEN, Respondent. Civil Action No. 23-2740 (UNA) MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court on consideration of David Brian Morgan’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) and pro se Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (ECF No. 1, “Pet.”).1 Generally, Morgan challenges his conviction and sentence, see Pet. at 2 (page numbers designated by CM/ECF), and among other relief, he demands that his conviction be vacated immediately, see id. at 5. The Court will grant the application and dismiss the petition. A federal court may issue a writ of habeas corpus if a petitioner “is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). A habeas action is subject to jurisdictional and statutory limitations. See generally Braden v. 30th Judicial Cir. Ct. of Ky., 410 U.S. 484 (1973). The proper respondent in a habeas corpus action is the petitioner’s custodian, Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 434–35 (2004); Blair-Bey v. Quick, 151 F.3d 1036, 1039 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (citing Chatman-Bey v. Thornburgh, 864 F.2d 804, 810 (D.C. Cir. 1988)), whom Morgan has not named as the respondent. And this “district court may Only Morgan signed the petition and submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Although the names of dozens of prisoners appear in the petition, see Pet. at 12, the Court proceeds with Morgan is the sole petitioner. 1 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:23-cv-02740-UNA Document 3 Filed 09/26/23 Page 2 of 2 not entertain a habeas petition involving present physical custody unless the respondent custodian is within its territorial jurisdiction,” Stokes v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 374 F.3d 1235, 1239 (D.C. Cir. 2004), and Morgan is in custody in Oklahoma. If habeas relief is available to Morgan, he “should name his [custodian] as respondent and file the petition in the district of [his] confinement.” Evans v. U.S. Marshals Serv., 177 F. Supp. 3d 177, 182 (D.D.C. 2016) (quoting Padilla, 542 U.S. at 447); see Ardaneh v. United States Gov’t, 848 F. App’x 7, 8 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (affirming district court’s remand in part to Massachusetts court and dismissal in part “to the extent appellant seeks release from confinement [because] the district . . . lacked jurisdiction over appellant’s custodian”).2 An Order is issued separately. __________________________ DABNEY L. FRIEDRICH United States District Judge DATE: September 26, 2023 The Court notes that Morgan has challenged his State conviction – wholly without success – in the federal courts over the years. See, e.g., Morgan v. United States, No. 22-cv1060 (D.D.C. May 6, 2022) (remarking that Morgan “has run the habeas gamut in the Western District of Oklahoma”); Morgan v. Oklahoma, No. 19-cv-0482-R, 2019 WL 3210600, at *2 (W.D. Okla. May 29, 2019) (describing Morgan’s challenges, “under many guises, in this Court”), report and recommendation adopted, No. 19-cv-0482-R, 2019 WL 3208650 (W.D. Okla. July 16, 2019); Morgan v. Bear, No. 17-cv-797-R, 2018 WL 2210449, at *1 (W.D. Okla. Apr. 13, 2018) (recounting Morgan’s litigation history and noting that § 2254 claims in prior case had been dismissed “as unauthorized and second or successive”), report and recommendation adopted, No. 17-cv-797-R, 2018 WL 2209526 (W.D. Okla. May 14, 2018). 2 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.