Stephens v. Royal et al
Filing
15
OPINION AND ORDER by District Judge James H. Payne : Denying 10 petitioner's Motion to Stay and transferring case to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland for all further proceedings. See 28 U.S.C. 1631. (case terminated) (acg, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
LEE E. STEPHENS, JR.,
Petitioner,
v.
MIKE CARPENTER,
Interim Warden of Oklahoma
State Penitentiary, et al.,
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CIV-18-053-JHP
OPINION AND ORDER
On February 16, 2018, Petitioner Lee E. Stephens, Jr., filed through counsel this
petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 2254 (Dkt. 2). Petitioner is
incarcerated at Oklahoma State Penitentiary in McAlester, Oklahoma, under an interstate
corrections compact. He is challenging his conviction for first degree murder and his life
sentence without the possibility of parole imposed in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel
County, Maryland, Case No. 02-K-08-646. Because of counsel=s uncertainty about where
the petition should be filed, a Asubstantially identical@ habeas corpus petition was
simultaneously filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland Case
No. 18-cv-493-RDB (Dkt. 10 at 2).
On February 20, 2018, Petitioner filed in this Court and in the District Court of
Maryland motions to stay proceedings and to hold the petitions in abeyance, pending a
decision from the District Court of Maryland about whether the petition will be heard in
that Court, and pending resolution of Petitioner=s motion for reconsideration in the
Maryland Court of Special Appeals (Dkt. 10 at 3). On March 1, 2018, Petitioner filed a
notice in this Court, advising that the District Court of Maryland had granted a stay for the
habeas petition pending in that Court (Dkt. 11). Petitioner subsequently filed a notice
advising that the Maryland Court of Special Appeals denied his motion for reconsideration
(Dkt. 12).
A ' 2254 petition challenges the validity of a conviction and sentence and should
be filed in the district where the petitioner was convicted and sentenced. Montez v.
McKinna, 208 F.3d 862, 865 (10th Cir. 2000). Because this action was improperly filed
in the Eastern District of Oklahoma, this Court finds the matter should be addressed in the
District Court of Maryland.
ACCORDINGLY, Petitioner=s motion to stay petition (Dkt. 10) is denied, and his
petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Dkt. 2) is hereby transferred in the interest of justice
to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland for all further proceedings.
See 28 U.S.C. ' 1631,
IT IS SO ORDERED this 5th day of September 2018.
2
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?