Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Kevin Kohute, a state prisoner incarcerated in Tyler, Texas, commenced this action on August 17, 2026, by filing a document styled as a “Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal Custody.” The court observed that this styling was erroneous. In a prior action, Kohute v. Orange College, et al., CV 26-1473-SRM(E), Kohute had conceded that he was serving a sentence for a conviction sustained in a Texas state court, confirming that he was not in federal custody.
The action was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California under No. CV 26-9905-SRM(E), with the Social Security Office named as respondent. By an order of dismissal dated October 6, 2026, and signed by United States District Judge Serena R. Murillo, the court addressed whether it could issue habeas relief for a prisoner incarcerated in Texas. The document also bore a notation that it was presented by United States Magistrate Judge Charles F. Eick.
The dispositive question was jurisdiction over the petitioner's custodian rather than the merits of any challenge to his conviction or confinement. Because the custodian determines where a habeas petition may be heard, the order resolved that threshold question against the petitioner and dismissed the action without reaching the underlying claims.
The Court’s Holding
The court explained that federal district courts may grant writs of habeas corpus only “within their respective jurisdictions.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a). Relying on Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court, the order stated that the court issuing the writ must have jurisdiction over the custodian, a rule that ensures the custodian will be amenable to service of process. The court also cited Dunne v. Henman in support of that requirement.
For this purpose, the court stated, a prisoner's custodian generally is the warden of the particular facility in which the prisoner is incarcerated, citing Brittingham v. United States and Dunne v. Henman for that principle. Because Kohute was incarcerated in Tyler, Texas, his custodian was located in Texas, and the Central District of California therefore could not issue the writ even though the petition was filed there. The court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to grant habeas relief.
The operative disposition was that the petition was denied and dismissed without prejudice, and the court directed that judgment be entered accordingly. The order did not decide the underlying validity of Kohute's Texas conviction or sentence, and it made no finding on the merits. Its without-prejudice disposition rested solely on the custodian-jurisdiction defect identified in the order.
Key Takeaways
- A federal habeas court must have jurisdiction over the petitioner's custodian under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a).
- The court applied the general rule that a prisoner's custodian is the warden of the facility where the prisoner is incarcerated.
- Kohute's incarceration in Tyler, Texas, placed his custodian in Texas, outside the Central District of California's habeas jurisdiction.
- The petition was denied and dismissed without prejudice, with judgment to be entered accordingly.
- The order resolved jurisdiction only and did not adjudicate the merits of Kohute's underlying state-court conviction.
Why It Matters
The order applies settled custodian-jurisdiction principles to a geographically mismatched habeas filing. Although the petition was filed in California, the petitioner was a Texas state prisoner held in Tyler, and the court treated the location of his custodian as controlling. The decision illustrates why identifying the proper custodian and filing in a court with jurisdiction over that custodian are threshold requirements in habeas litigation, and why a mislabeled federal-custody petition cannot cure that defect.
The dismissal without prejudice is also important to the order's scope. The court did not reject the petition on the merits or make any finding about the validity of the Texas conviction. Instead, it concluded that it could not grant the requested habeas relief because the custodian was in Texas, and it directed entry of judgment on that jurisdictional basis, leaving Kohute free to pursue relief in a proper forum.