28 U.S.C. § 2242
Application
Application for a writ of habeas corpus shall be in writing signed and verified by the person for whose relief it is intended or by someone acting in his behalf.
It shall allege the facts concerning the applicant’s commitment or detention, the name of the person who has custody over him and by virtue of what claim or authority, if known.
It may be amended or supplemented as provided in the rules of procedure applicable to civil actions.
If addressed to the Supreme Court, a justice thereof or a circuit judge it shall state the reasons for not making application to the district court of the district in which the applicant is held.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1,618
cases (898 in the last 5 years), 1949–2026 · leading case: Rumsfeld v. Padilla
Rumsfeld v. Padilla (2004)
“" 28 U. S. C. § 2242 ; see also § 2243 ("The writ, or order to show cause shall be directed to the person having custody of the person detained").”
Mayle v. Felix (2005)
“" 28 U. S. C. § 2242 . The Civil Rule on amended pleadings, Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, instructs: "An amendment of a pleading relates back to the date of the original pleading when .”
Whitmore Ex Rel. Simmons v. Arkansas (1990)
“See 28 U. S. C. § 2242 (1982 ed.) ("Application for a writ of habeas corpus shall be in writing signed and verified by the person for whose relief it is intended or by someone acting in his behalf ") (emphasis added).”
Bruce Carneil Webster v. Charles A. Daniels (2015)
“See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2242 , 2243 ¶ 2 (directing the writ to run against the person having cus- tody of the person detained).”
John Doe v. Merrick Garland (2024)
“First, the Court noted that in the federal habeas statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2242 , “[t]he consistent use of the definite article in reference to the custodian indicates that there is generally only one proper respondent to a given prisoner’s habeas petition.”
Naruto v. David Slater (2018)
“Although Congress has authorized “next friend” lawsuits on behalf of habeas petitioners, see 28 U.S.C. § 2242 , and on behalf of a “minor or incompetent person,” see Fed.”
Johnson v. Avery (1969)
“The District Court held that the regulation was void because it in effect barred illiterate prisoners from access to federal habeas corpus and conflicted with 28 U. S. C. § 2242 . [1] 252 F. Supp. 783 .”
Öztürk v. Hyde (2025)
“426, 438 (2004); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2242 . Generally, “[w]henever a § 2241 habeas petitioner seeks to challenge his present physical custody within the United States,” he must file the petition in the district of confinement and name his 8 immediate custodian as the respondent.”
Carey v. Saffold (2002)
“, 28 U. S. C. § 2242 ("application for a writ of habeas corpus shall be in writing signed and verified"); § 2243 (a"judge entertaining an application for a writ of habeas corpus").”
Jennings v. Rodriguez (2018)
“426, 434 (2004) (explaining that “the proper respondent to a habeas petition is ‘the person who has custody over [the petitioner]’ ” (quoting 28 U. S. C. §2242 )). Immigration law has long drawn a distinction between the declaratory and injunctive relief that respondents sought…”
Ronald Ross v. Williams (2020)
“See 28 U.S.C. § 2242 (“[An] [a]pplication for a writ of habeas corpus .”
Genesis Hill v. Betty Mitchell (2016)
“at 650 ); see 28 U.S.C. § 2242 (providing that habeas applications “may be amended .”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.