Porter v. Addison
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Edward Alan Porter, recommending transfer of the action to the Northern District of Oklahoma. Parties advised of their right to object to the R&R. Objections to R&R due by 2/21/2006. This R&R terminates the referral to Judge Robert Bacharach.. Signed by Judge Robert Bacharach on 01/31/06. (bf, )
Porter v. Addison
Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA1 EDWARD ALAN PORTER, Petitioner, v. MIKE ADDISON, Warden, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case No. CIV-06-100-F
Report and Recommendation Mr. Edward Porter seeks habeas relief,2 and the Court should transfer the action to the Northern District of Oklahoma. The Petitioner is challenging acceptance of the plea and validity of the sentence imposed in Tulsa County District Court. That court is located in the Northern District of Oklahoma. See 28 U.S.C. § 116(a). Because Mr. Porter is incarcerated in Lexington, Oklahoma,3 the Northern and Western districts have concurrent jurisdiction over the habeas petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). However, this Court has discretion to transfer the action to the Northern District of Oklahoma for hearing and determination. See id.
The habeas petition identifies the forum as the Northern District of Oklahoma. In a telephonic conference, however, Mr. Porter stated that he had intended to file the action in the Western District of Oklahoma. See Minute Entry (Jan. 31, 2006).
The habeas petition is unsigned. Mr. Porter has been instructed to sign a copy of the habeas petition and to file a signed version in the Western District of Oklahoma. See Minute Entry (Jan. 31, 2006).
Lexington, Oklahoma, is in the Western District of Oklahoma. See 28 U.S.C. § 116(c).
Page 2 of 2
The Court should exercise its discretion and transfer the action to the Northern District of Oklahoma. For a habeas petition which challenges the validity of a conviction or sentence, this district and the Northern District of Oklahoma have shared the view that adjudication should ordinarily take place in the sentencing court. This view is based, in part, on the shared belief that ordinarily the trial records and counsel will be available there. Under these circumstances, the undersigned recommends transfer of the action to the Northern District of Oklahoma.4 The Petitioner is advised of his right to object to this report and recommendation by February 21, 2006. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); W.D. Okla. LCvR 72.1(a). Any such objection must be filed with the Court Clerk for the United States District Court, Western District of Oklahoma. Failure to timely object would waive Mr. Porter's right to challenge the transfer in a subsequent appeal. See Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991). This report and recommendation terminates the referral. The undersigned directs the Court Clerk to send the report and recommendation to the Petitioner and the Attorney General of Oklahoma. The copy for the Attorney General of Oklahoma is for informational purposes only. Entered this 31st day of January, 2006.
In a telephonic conference, Mr. Porter stated that he did not object to transfer of the action to the Northern District of Oklahoma. See Minute Entry (Jan. 31, 2006).
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?