(HC) Morgan v. Warden, USP Atwater

Filing 12

ORDER ADOPTING 11 Findings and Recommendations, DENYING Respondent's 9 Motion to Dismiss, and TRANSFERRING the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus to the Southern District of Indiana signed by District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 1/7/2025. (Deputy Clerk SSA)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JACK MORGAN,
Petitioner,

12
13
14
15

v.
WARDEN, USP ATWATER,
Respondent.

16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:24-cv-0844 JLT SAB (HC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING
RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS, AND
TRANSFERRING THE PETITION OF WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS TO THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF INDIANA
(Docs. 9, 11)

17

Jack Morgan is a federal prisoner proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant

18

to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, seeking to challenge a disciplinary proceeding at USP Atwater that resulted in the

19

loss of good conduct credit, thirty days of segregation, and the loss of privileges for sixty days. (See

20

Doc. 1.) Respondent moved to dismiss the petition, asserting the Court lacks jurisdiction because

21

Petitioner was housed at the United States Penitentiary in Terre Haute, Indiana, when he filed the

22

petition. (Doc. 9.)

23

The magistrate judge observed that although the petition indicated Petitioner was housed at

24

USP Atwater when the document was signed on June 27, 2024, a copy of Petitioner’s “Inmate

25

History” submitted by Respondent that showed Petitioner was transferred from Atwater and arrived at

26

USP Terre Haute on June 5, 2024. (Doc. 9 at 2, citing App. 41 [Doc. 9-1 at 42].) The magistrate

27

judge found that because venue is proper in the district of confinement, and “Petitioner has been

28

housed at USP Terre Haute throughout the pendency of this action,” the proper venue for this petition
1

1

is the Southern District of Indiana. (Id. at 3.) The magistrate judge also determined that transfer to the

2

proper venue “is appropriate in the interest of justice.” (Id.) Therefore, the magistrate judge

3

recommended the Court deny the motion to dismiss and transfer the petition to the Southern District of

4

Indiana. (Id.)

5

The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on the parties and notified them that any

6

objections were due within 30 days. (Doc. 11 at 3-4.) The Court advised the parties that the “failure

7

to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of the ‘rights to challenge the

8

magistrate judge’s factual findings’ on appeal.” (Id., quoting Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834,

9

838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Neither Petitioner nor Respondent filed objections, and the time to do so has

10

expired.

11

According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case.

12

Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are

13

supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS:

14

1.

The Findings and Recommendations dated November 27, 2024 (Doc. 11) are ADOPTED
in full.

15
16

2.

Respondent’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 9) is DENIED.

17

3.

The petition is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Indiana.

18
19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 7, 2025

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2