Pyles v. Patton

Filing 6

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 5 of Magistrate Judge Charles B. Goodwin...this case is TRANSFERRED to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma for all further proceedings. Signed by Honorable Joe Heaton on 1/19/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment 1 - Report and Recommendation)(cla)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
STEVEN LYNN PYLES,
Petitioner,
v.
JOE M. ALLBAUGH,
ODOC Director,1
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-16-1189-HE

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner Steven Lynn Pyles, a state prisoner appearing pro se, brings this action
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 seeking a writ of habeas corpus. Chief United States
District Judge Joe Heaton has referred this matter to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for
initial proceedings consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).

As outlined herein, the

undersigned recommends that the action be transferred to the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Oklahoma.
Petitioner is serving eight consecutive ten-year sentences pursuant to a 1990
criminal conviction entered in, and imposed by, the District Court of Atoka County,
Oklahoma, which lies in the territorial jurisdiction of the Eastern District of Oklahoma.
Pet. (Doc. No. 1) at 1; 28 U.S.C. § 116(b). Petitioner currently is confined at Lawton
Correctional Facility (“LCF”) in Lawton, Oklahoma. Pet. at 1. The city of Lawton is
1

Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 25(d) and 81(a)(4), Joe M. Allbaugh, the
current Director of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections, is substituted as
Respondent in this proceeding.
See Okla. Dep’t of Corr., Director’s Office,
https://www.ok.gov/doc/Organization/Director’s_Office/ (last visited Nov. 1, 2016).

located in Comanche County, which lies in the territorial jurisdiction of the Western
District of Oklahoma. See 28 U.S.C. § 116(c).
The allegations of the Petition therefore establish that both this Court and the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma have jurisdiction over
this habeas proceeding. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d) (prescribing that the district court of
conviction and the district court for the district of confinement have “concurrent
jurisdiction” over a state prisoner’s application for writ of habeas corpus). Pursuant to
the statute, however, this Court may, “in the exercise of its discretion and in furtherance
of justice,” transfer the Petition “to the other district court for hearing and determination.”
Id.
In his pleading, Petitioner seeks relief from his Atoka County District Court
criminal conviction due to: (1) his lack of competency to stand trial; (2) multiple
prosecutions for one criminal act; and (3) ineffective assistance of trial counsel. See Pet.
at 5-9. Thus, Petitioner’s habeas claims challenge his state-court trial proceedings in the
Eastern District of Oklahoma rather than the execution or administration of any prison
sentence being served in the Western District of Oklahoma. See id.
It follows that relevant records and officials involved generally will be located in
the district in which Petitioner was tried and convicted. And “if a hearing is required,
trial counsel for the prosecution and any necessary witnesses should be available in the
district where the conviction was obtained.” Manning v. Oklahoma, No. CIV-13-990HE, 2013 WL 5923721, at *1 (W.D. Okla. Nov. 1, 2013) (transferring § 2254 action and

2

noting that “federal district courts in Oklahoma have had a longstanding policy favoring
transferring habeas actions to the district of conviction”).
Under these circumstances, the undersigned recommends transfer of the action to
the Eastern District of Oklahoma in the exercise of the Court’s discretion and “in
furtherance of justice.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d); see, e.g., Watie v. Aldredge, No. CIV15-1205-HE, 2016 WL 1337287 (W.D. Okla. Apr. 5, 2016).
RECOMMENDATION
Based on these considerations, the undersigned recommends that this action be
transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma for all
further proceedings.
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT
Petitioner is advised of his right to file an objection to this Report and
Recommendation with the Clerk of this Court by December 20, 2016, in accordance with
28 U.S.C. § 636 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. Petitioner further is advised that failure to make
timely objection to this Report and Recommendation waives the right to appellate review
of both the factual and legal issues contained herein. See Moore v. United States, 950
F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991).
This Report and Recommendation disposes of all issues referred to the
undersigned Magistrate Judge in the above captioned matter.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to electronically serve a copy of this Report and
Recommendation on Respondent and on the Attorney General for the State of Oklahoma
at [e-mail].
3

ENTERED this 29th day of November, 2016.

4