Narrative Opinion Summary
George Grigsby filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241 and 2254, challenging the decision of Judge Mary Maxwell or Judge Thomas of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to place him in a mental institution without a grand jury indictment. The court noted uncertainty regarding Grigsby's current custody status, which is a prerequisite for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c). Even assuming he is in custody, the court stated that the proper venue for the petition is the judicial district with jurisdiction over his immediate custodian, as established in case law. Since neither Grigsby nor his custodian is located in the District of Columbia, the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the petition. Consequently, Grigsby's petition is denied, and the case is dismissed. An order reflecting this decision was issued separately.
Legal Issues Addressed
Custody Requirement for Habeas Reliefsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court addressed the necessity of the petitioner being in custody to qualify for habeas corpus relief.
Reasoning: The court noted uncertainty regarding Grigsby's current custody status, which is a prerequisite for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c).
Denial and Dismissal of Petitionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court denied the petition for lack of jurisdiction and dismissed the case.
Reasoning: Consequently, Grigsby's petition is denied, and the case is dismissed.
Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and § 2254subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The petitioner challenged his placement in a mental institution without a grand jury indictment, seeking habeas corpus relief.
Reasoning: George Grigsby filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241 and 2254, challenging the decision of Judge Mary Maxwell or Judge Thomas of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to place him in a mental institution without a grand jury indictment.
Jurisdictional Requirements for Habeas Corpus Petitionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court highlighted the necessity of filing the petition in the district with jurisdiction over the petitioner's immediate custodian.
Reasoning: Even assuming he is in custody, the court stated that the proper venue for the petition is the judicial district with jurisdiction over his immediate custodian, as established in case law.
Lack of Jurisdictionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the petition as neither the petitioner nor the custodian was located in its district.
Reasoning: Since neither Grigsby nor his custodian is located in the District of Columbia, the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the petition.