Doucet v. Franklin Parish Detention Center
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: RECOMMENDED that John B. Doucet's 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (28:2254) be TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. Objections to R&R due by 2/9/2010. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles, III on 1/26/10.(sek, ) [Transferred from Louisiana Eastern on 3/1/2010.]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA JOHN B. DOUCET VERSUS CHAD LEE, WARDEN CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-155 SECTION "J" (3) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION This matter was referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge to conduct hearings, including an Evidentiary Hearing if necessary, and to submit Proposed Findings and Recommendations pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C), and as applicable, Rule 8(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Upon review of the petition, the Court has determined that this matter can be disposed of without an Evidentiary Hearing. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2). The petitioner, John Doucet, filed a petition seeking habeas corpus relief pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 2254, related to his 2004 conviction and 40-year sentence of imprisonment entered in Lafayette Parish.1 Lafayette Parish is located within the jurisdictional boundaries of the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. Title 28 U.S.C. § 98(c). The petitioner is presently incarcerated in the Franklin Parish Detention Center in Winnsboro, Louisiana, which
The Court directed the Clerk by separate Order to file this petition without prepayment of a filing fee. The application for pauper status is deferred to the Western District of Louisiana for determination.
is located in Franklin Parish, within the boundaries of the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. Title 28 U.S.C. § 98(c). Title 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d) provides for the proper venue in filing a petition for federal habeas corpus relief: Where an application for a writ of habeas corpus is made by a person in custody under the judgment and sentence of a State court of a State which contains two or more Federal judicial districts, the application may be filed in the district court for the district wherein such person is in custody or in the district court for the district within which the State court was held which convicted and sentenced him and each of such district courts shall have concurrent jurisdiction to entertain the application. The district court for the district wherein such an application is filed in the exercise of its discretion and in furtherance of justice may transfer the application to the other district court for hearing and determination. In a multi-district state such as Louisiana, the application may be filed either in the district in which the petitioner is incarcerated or in the district in which he was convicted and sentenced. Under §2241(d), the district court for the district where the application is filed may, in the exercise of its discretion and in the furtherance of justice, transfer the application to another district court for hearing and determination. In addition, 28 U.S.C. § 1406 provides that the district court of a district in which is filed a case laying venue in the wrong division or district, shall dismiss or, if it be in the interest of justice, transfer the case to any district or division in which it could have been brought. The Court believes that it is in the interest of justice to transfer this case to the Western District of Louisiana where the evidence and witnesses are located.
RECOMMENDATION For the foregoing reasons, IT IS RECOMMENDED that John B. Doucet's habeas petition be TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. A party's failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation in a magistrate judge's report and recommendation within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy shall bar that party, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court, provided that the party has been served with notice that such consequences will result from a failure to object. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Douglass v. United Services Automobile Association, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).2 New Orleans, Louisiana, this 26th day of January, 2010.
____________________________________ DANIEL E. KNOWLES, III UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Douglass referenced the previously applicable ten-day period for the filing of objections. Effective December 1, 2009, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) was amended to extend that period to fourteen days. 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?