Cathey v. Jones

Filing 9

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of Magistrate Judge Bana Roberts...and transfers this action to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma. Signed by Honorable Joe Heaton on 06/15/2012. (lam)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
BILL CATHEY,
Petitioner,
vs.
RANDY WORKMAN, Warden,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

NO. CIV-12-512-HE

ORDER
Petitioner Bill Cathey, a state prisoner appearing pro se, filed this habeas action
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging a prison disciplinary proceeding and
conviction. The matter was referred for initial proceedings to Magistrate Judge Bana
Roberts, who has issued her Report and Recommendation recommending that the action
be transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma.
The transfer is warranted, the magistrate judge concluded, because petitioner, at the time
he filed this action and currently, is incarcerated at the Oklahoma State Penitentiary in
McAlester, Oklahoma, which is within the Eastern Judicial District of Oklahoma. Noting
that petitioner appears to have a related matter pending in the Eastern District, she
suggests that the action be transferred there in the interest of justice.
Petitioner objects to the proposed transfer, asserting that the magistrate judge has
mischaracterized his case as one brought under § 2241, rather than § 2254, and confused
jurisdiction and venue. She has not. Because petitioner is challenging a disciplinary
conviction, he seeks relief under § 2241. Buhl v. Hood, 81 Fed.Appx. 273, 274 (10th Cir.

2003) (unpublished) (“[W]e have held that a § 2241 attack on the execution of a sentence
may challenge the loss of good time credits and other prison disciplinary matters.”)
(internal quotations omitted). Section 2254 is not applicable because petitioner is not
challenging the validity of his underlying state conviction and sentence.

Because

petitioner is incarcerated in the Eastern Judicial District, the court lacks jurisdiction to
grant habeas relief. Kelso v. Luna, 317 Fed.Appx. 846, 847 (10th Cir. 2009)
(unpublished) (“District courts can grant habeas corpus relief only ‘within their respective
jurisdictions.’ 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a). This requires that a district court have jurisdiction
over the plaintiff's custodian . . . .”).
Accordingly, the court adopts Magistrate Judge Roberts’ Report and
Recommendation and transfers this habeas action to the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Oklahoma. 28 U.S.C. § 1631.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 15th day of June, 2012.

2