Rudolph v. Williams et al

Filing 3

ORDER DIRECTING the Clerk to transfer this case to the USDC for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Rajkumar Rudolph.. Signed by Magistrate Judge R. Stan Baker on 3/2/2016. (ca)[Transferred from Georgia Southern on 3/2/2016.]

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
STATESBORO DIVISION

RAJKUMAR RUDOLPH,
Petitioner,

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 6:16-cv-16

v.
STANLEY WILLIAMS,
Respondent.

ORDER
Petitioner Rajkumar Rudolph (“Rudolph”), who is currently housed at Smith State Prison
in Glennville, Georgia, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
(Doc. 1.) Rudolph has also moved to proceed in forma pauperis in this Court. (Doc. 2.) In his
Petition, Rudolph attacks his conviction obtained in the Superior Court of Gwinnett County,
Georgia. (Doc. 1, p. 1.)
While this Court has jurisdiction over this Petition because Rudolph is incarcerated
within this District, it is prudent to address the venue of this action. All applications for writs of
habeas corpus filed by persons in state custody, including those filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, are
governed by 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Medberry v. Crosby, 351 F.2d 1049, 1062 (11th Cir. 2003). For
a person who is “in custody under the judgment and sentence of a [s]tate court”, Section 2241(d)
specifies the “respective jurisdictions” where a Section 2254 petition may be heard. Under
Section 2241(d), a person in custody under the judgment of a state court may file his Section
2254 petition in the federal district (1) “within which the [s]tate court was held which convicted
and sentenced him”; or (2) “wherein [he] is in custody.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d); see also Eagle v.

Linahan, 279 F.3d 926, 933 n. 9 (11th Cir. 2001). Therefore, the Court may, “in the exercise of
its discretion and in furtherance of justice”, transfer an application for writ of habeas corpus to
“the district court for the district within which the State court was held which convicted”
Petitioner. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d).
In enacting Section 2241(d), “Congress explicitly recognized the substantial advantages
of having these cases resolved in the court which originally imposed the confinement or in the
court located nearest the site of the underlying controversy.” Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit
Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484, 497 (1973); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (“For the
convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any
civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought.”). To that end, the
federal courts of this State maintain a “longstanding practice” of transferring habeas petitions “to
the district of conviction.” Isaac v. Brown, No. CV 4:10-071, 2010 WL 2636045, at *1 (S.D.
Ga. May 24, 2010), report and recommendation adopted, No. CV 4:10-071, 2010 WL 2636059
(S.D. Ga. June 29, 2010) (citing Eagle, 279 F.3d at 933 n.9); see also Order, Hewitt v. Allen, No.
3:14-cv-27 (M.D. Ga. Mar. 26, 2014), ECF No. 4 (“Adherence to this policy results in each
district court considering habeas actions arising within the district and in an equitable
distribution of habeas cases among the districts of this state.”).
The place of Rudolph’s conviction, Gwinnett County, is located in the Atlanta Division
of the Northern District of Georgia. 28 U.S.C. § 90(a)(2). Consequently, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED that this action shall be TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to transfer

2

this case to that Court.
SO ORDERED, this 2nd day of March, 2016.

R. STAN BAKER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

3