Harris v. Babcock

Filing 4

ORDER OF TRANSFER. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 2/11/13. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/11/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 OAKLAND DIVISION 6 7 CHRIS HARRIS, Petitioner, 8 9 v. ORDER OF TRANSFER BABCOCK, Warden, Respondent. 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 No. C 13-0115 PJH (PR) / 12 13 Petitioner, a federal prisoner incarcerated at F.C.I. Herlong has filed a pro se petition 14 for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner alleges that he was 15 illegally detained and investigated for posing a threat to the security of the facility. The acts 16 complained of occurred at F.C.I. Herlong , which lies within the Eastern District of 17 California, and defendant Babcock is the warden residing in that district.1 18 The Supreme Court has established that traditional venue doctrines are fully 19 applicable to habeas petitions brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Braden v. 30th 20 Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484, 493–94 (1973). Traditional venue 21 considerations include, but are not limited to, where 1) “the material events took place,” 2) 22 where the “records and witnesses pertinent to petitioner's claim are likely to be found,” and 23 3) whether the forum is convenient for the parties. Id. 24 Although this court may have jurisdiction to hear a petition, see Braden, 410 U.S. at 25 494-95, Braden also makes clear that "venue considerations may, and frequently will, 26 argue in favor of adjudication of the habeas claim in the jurisdiction where the habeas 27 petitioner is confined." Chatman-Bey v. Thornburgh, 864 F.2d 804, 813 (D.C. Cir. 1988). 28 1 Petitioner does not say where he was convicted. 1 Federal courts generally take the position that the district of confinement "is normally 2 the forum most convenient to the parties," McCoy v. United States Bd. of Parole, 537 F.2d 3 962, 966 (8th Cir. 1976), and therefore exercise discretion in transferring petitions to the 4 district of confinement "in the interests of justice" pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). See id.; 5 see also Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249-50 (9th Cir. 1989) (suggesting that even 6 where district court has personal jurisdiction over custodian, preferred forum is district 7 where petitioner is confined). This practice is supported by the fact that a prisoner's 8 records follow him to the place of incarceration and in that it promotes uniformity in the filing 9 of § 2241 petitions. As all the events occurred in the Eastern District of California, the case 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 will be transferred. This case is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Eastern 12 District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). In view of the transfer, the court will not 13 rule upon plaintiff's request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 11, 2013. PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON United States District Judge 16 17 18 G:\PRO-SE\PJH\HC.13\Harris0115.trn.wpd 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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?