Dixon v. LeGrande et al

Filing 7

ORDER denying 6 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Howard D. McKibben on 4/29/13. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
7
8

WILLIAM ROBERT DIXON,
9
Petitioner,

3:13-cv-00150-HDM-VPC

10
vs.
11
12
13

ORDER
ROBERT LEGRANDE, et al.,
Respondents.

14
15

This habeas matter, which already has been transferred to the Southern District of

16

Ohio, comes before the Court on petitioner’s motion (#6) for reconsideration of the transfer.

17

The motion for reconsideration will be denied.

18

First, the Court does not have jurisdiction to reconsider the transfer order in the first

19

instance. It is well-established law that the docketing of a transferred case in an out-of-circuit

20

transferee court terminates the jurisdiction of both the transferor court and the corresponding

21

court of appeals. See,e.g., NBS Imaging Systems, Inc. v. United States District Court, 841

22

F.2d 297, 298 (9th Cir. 1988); Lou v. Belzberg, 834 F.2d 730, 733 (9th Cir. 1987); 15 C. Wright,

23

A. Miller & E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure: Jurisdiction § 3846 (3rd ed. 2010).

24

The April 5, 2003, transmittal return from the Southern District of Ohio reflects that the

25

transferred case was docketed in that court on April 4, 2013. Petitioner did not mail his

26

motion for reconsideration for filing until on or after April 7, 2013, after the transferred case

27

had been docketed in the Southern District of Ohio. There thus no longer is any jurisdiction

28

in this District or Circuit to reconsider or review the transfer order.

1
2

Second, petitioner in any event merely restates arguments that this Court considered
and rejected in the transfer order. As the Court stated in the prior order:

3

In this case, Dixon already has taken the opportunity in the
“motion for change of venue” to present his argument as to why
venue should be maintained in this district. To any extent that
petitioner has an arguendo non-fanciful concern as to the
physical safety of himself and others, the venue in which this
successive habeas petition is litigated will not have any necessary
impact on anyone’s physical security, one way or the other. To
the extent that petitioner has concerns with the district court’s
decision in No. 3:11-cv-00150 in the Southern District of Ohio,
petitioner must seek relief in the courts that have jurisdiction to
review the decisions of that court and/or in that court. This Court
is not an appropriate forum within which to air petitioner’s
disagreement with the decision of a coordinate federal district
court.

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

#4, at 3.

12

Petitioner must present his arguments, e.g., that “Ohio is corrupted, Ohio is covering

13

up the facts and lying on rulings, [and] no one in Ohio will do the right thing . . .” to a reviewing

14

court with jurisdiction to review the prior decision in the Southern District of Ohio. This Court,

15

again, is not an appropriate forum within which to air petitioner’s disagreement with the

16

decision of a coordinate federal district court. A convicted felon’s bald assertion that law

17

enforcement and the courts in another jurisdiction are corrupt provides absolutely no basis

18

for this Court to take on a jurisdiction that it does not have to either directly or collaterally

19

review the presumptively valid proceedings of a coordinate federal district court.

20

That is the Court’s last word on the matter. The action is closed in this district.

21

IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that petitioner’s motion (#6) for reconsideration is

22
23

DENIED.
DATED: April 29, 2013.

24
25
26
27

___________________________________
HOWARD D. MCKIBBEN
United States District Judge

28
-2-