Kevin L. Barden v. Patrick Keohane, Warden

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing that the court retains jurisdiction over a habeas petition despite the petitioner’s transfer when there was no application for transfer pursuant to Rule 23(a)
• holding that a §2241 petition must be presented to the district court in the United States District where the petitioner is incarcerated
• concluding that a federal sentence may commence for a defendant who is already in state custody if the BOP or Attorney General designate a state facility for service of the federal sentence
• holding that “in the absence of an application for transfer pursuant to Rule 23(a), jurisdiction is retained and [the originally named respondent] remains the respondent” notwithstanding the transfer of the petition to a different jurisdiction
• noting that \jurisdiction over a petition for a writ of habeas corpus is determined when the petition was filed\
• noting that the statute wisely requires the BOP to solicit the views of the sentencing judge whenever possible

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).