Williamson v. Tews

Filing 2

ORDER OF TRANSFER. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 11/10/11. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/10/2011)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 OAKLAND DIVISION 6 7 RENEE F. WILLIAMSON, Petitioner, 8 vs. 9 ORDER OF TRANSFER RANDY L. TEWS, Warden, Respondent. 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 No. C 11-0086 PJH (PR) / 12 13 Petitioner, a federal prisoner currently housed at Camp Parks in Dublin, has filed a 14 pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus on a form for petitions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 15 § 2241. She has paid the filing fee. 16 Petitioner pleaded guilty in Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County to charges 17 of possession or use of dangerous drugs, possession of drug paraphernalia, and theft. In 18 September of 2008, she was sentenced to two years of probation. She did not report. On 19 April 30, 2009, she was sentenced by federal court in Texas to a prison term of 240 months 20 with five years of supervised release. In August of 2009, the probation office in Arizona 21 filed a petition to revoke her probation for failure to report; a warrant and a detainer were 22 issued. 23 Petitioner says that she filed a Motion to Terminate Probation and Quash Warrants 24 in the Arizona Court, which was misplaced, then another copy of the same motion, which 25 was denied. She says that a week later the County Attorney filed a “Motion and Order to 26 Dismiss Petition and Quash Warrant,” stating that his office did not intend to extradite her. 27 It was granted on September 17, 2010. 28 /// 1 At this point the allegations in the petition become less clear. Petitioner says: “At 2 first glance it appeared as though Ms. Williamson had prevailed on her Motion to Terminate 3 Probation and Quash the Warrants. However, it appears that Ms. Williamson is still on 4 probation and that the State of Arizona will eventually refile the revocation petition and will 5 reissue the warrants. For no other reason than this, a hearing is necessary and Ms. 6 Williamson respectfully requests that this Court order the Arizona Superior Court to 7 expedite a hearing, or, in the alterative, terminate Ms. Williamson’s probation.” Pet. at 4-5. 8 9 On the first page of the petition, petitioner says she is challenging the September, 2008, conviction in the Arizona state court. Her sole ground for relief, however, is a claim of “Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Violation; Revocation of Probation 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 without a Hearing; Sixth Amendment Speedy Trial Violation.” This claim appears to be 12 directed to a revocation that never happened, since she says in her memorandum that the 13 County Attorney dismissed the petition to revoke. However, her contention that this court 14 should order the Arizona court to hold a hearing on whether probation should be revoked, 15 or order it to terminate the probation, quoted in the paragraph above, clarifies that she is in 16 fact attacking the probation itself. The petition therefore will be construed as brought under 17 28 U.S.C. § 2254, a challenge to her state court sentence. 18 Venue for a habeas action is proper in either the district of confinement or the district 19 of conviction, 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d); however, petitions challenging a conviction are 20 preferably heard in the district of conviction. Habeas L.R. 2254-3(a); Laue v. Nelson, 279 21 F. Supp. 265, 266 (N.D. Cal. 1968). Because petitioner was convicted in Maricopa County, 22 Arizona, this case is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the District of 23 Arizona in Phoenix. See 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a); Habeas L.R. 2254-3(b). 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: November 10, 2011. PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON United States District Judge 26 27 28 P:\PRO-SE\PJH\HC.11\WILLIAMSON0086.TRN.wpd 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?