Williams v. Tatum

Filing 4

ORDER TRANSFERRING this case to the U.S.D.C. for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. The Clerk is DIRECTED to transfer this case to that Court. Signed by Magistrate Judge R. Stan Baker on 9/16/2016. (ca)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA STATESBORO DIVISION FLOYD W. WILLIAMS, II, Petitioner, CIVIL ACTION NO.: 6:16-cv-126 v. CLAY TATUM, Respondent. ORDER Petitioner Floyd Williams, II (“Williams”), who is currently housed at Rogers State Prison in Reidsville, Georgia, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1.) Williams has also moved to proceed in forma pauperis in this Court and for the appointment of counsel. (Docs. 2, 3.) In his Petition, Williams attacks his conviction obtained in the Superior Court of Clayton County, Georgia. (Doc. 1, p. 2.) While this Court has jurisdiction over this Petition because Williams 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 Williams’ conviction, Clayton 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 2 Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to transfer this case to that Court. SO ORDERED, this 16th day of September, 2016. R. STAN BAKER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA 3

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?