Parsley #399217 v. Skipper
Filing
2
ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE to the Western District of Michigan. Signed by District Judge Laurie J. Michelson. (DPer) [Transferred from Michigan Eastern on 4/22/2019.]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
HOOPER JACKSON PARSLEY,
Petitioner,
Case No. 19-11077
Honorable Laurie J. Michelson
v.
GREG SKIPPER,
Respondent.
ORDER TRANSFERRING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS TO THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF
MICHIGAN
Hooper Jackson Parsley is presently confined at the Michigan Reformatory. He is there
because of three convictions for criminal sexual conduct. Parsley believes his incarceration is in
violation of the Constitution. So he petitions this Court for a writ of habeas corpus. (ECF No. 1.)
But the Eastern District is not the proper venue for Parsley’s petition. Parsley challenges
state criminal convictions out of Kent County. And he is presently incarcerated in Ionia County.
Both Kent and Ionia Counties are in the Western District of Michigan. And according to the venue
provision governing habeas corpus cases, the Western District is where Parsley should seek his
release. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d) (establishing that venue is proper either in the district where
convictions occurred or district where petitioner is presently incarcerated); see also Moore v.
Olson, 368 F.3d 757, 759 (7th Cir. 2004) (holding that § 2241(d) “is so clearly a special venue
provision”); see also Manes v. Bell, No. 07-11716, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30734, at *3 (E.D.
Mich. Apr. 23, 2007).1
1
The reference to “concurrent jurisdiction” in § 2241(d) has caused some confusion as to
whether the determination of the proper district for seeking a writ of habeas corpus is a jurisdiction
Indeed, “the venue provision was enacted in recognition of ‘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.’” In re Bryant, No. 17-5816, 2017 U.S. App.
LEXIS 26803, at *2 (6th Cir. Dec. 27, 2017) (quoting Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of
Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484, 497 (1973)). And § 2241(d) says the Court, in “its discretion and in
furtherance of justice may transfer” the petition to the Western District. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d); see
also In re Bryant, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 26803 at *2; Manes, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30734 at
*3. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the Clerk of the Court to transfer this case to the United
States District Court for the Western District of Michigan pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
SO ORDERED.
s/Laurie J. Michelson
LAURIE J. MICHELSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Date: April 22, 2019
or venue issue. Compare Moore v. Olson, 368 F.3d 757, 759 (7th Cir. 2004) with Zenteno v.
Gipson, No. 14-01426, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64747, at *3–7 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2014). The
Court notes that the Sixth Circuit has referred to § 2241(d) as the “habeas corpus venue provision”
and has explained that it “provides for concurrent jurisdiction in the district where a petitioner was
convicted and in the district where the petitioner is confined.” In re Bryant, No. 17-5816, 2017
U.S. App. LEXIS 26803, at *2 (6th Cir. Dec. 27, 2017). The court agrees that this is more properly
viewed as a venue issue. And it does not doubt that it has subject matter jurisdiction over Parsley’s
petition which is brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. That federal statute grants federal courts
the power to “entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody
pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of
the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); see also Gillispie v.
Warden, London Corr. Inst., 771 F.3d 323, 328 (6th Cir. 2014). But the Court is not the proper
venue as Parsley is not presently confined in the Eastern District and was not convicted in this
District.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record
and/or pro se parties on this date, April 22, 2019, using the Electronic Court Filing system and/or
first-class U.S. mail.
s/William Barkholz
Case Manager
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?