POLLARD v. FERGUSON et al
ORDER THAT THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (DOC. 3) IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED; POLLARD'S PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS SHALL BE TRANSFERRED FORTHWITH TO THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DIST. OF PA; THERE HAS BEEN NO SUBSTANTIAL SHOWING OF THE DENIAL OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT WARRANTING THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY; AND THE CLERK OF COURT IS DIRECTED TO MARK THIS CASE CLOSED.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JUAN R. SANCHEZ ON 6/28/17. 6/28/17 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE PETITIONER. (pr, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
WESLEY M. POLLARD, SR.
TAMMY FERGUSON, et al.
AND NOW, this 28th day of June, 2017, upon careful and independent consideration of
Petitioner Wesley M. Pollard’s pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254, and after review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge
Elizabeth T. Hey, to which no objections have been filed, 1 it is ORDERED:
The Report and Recommendation (Document 3) is APPROVED and
The Report and Recommendation was sent to all parties of record on May 17, 2017, together
with a Notice from the Clerk of Court advising the parties of their obligation to file any
objections within 14 days after service of the Notice. See Local R. Civ. P. 72.1 IV(b) (“Any
party may object to a magistrate judge’s proposed findings, recommendations or report under 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), and subsections 1(c) and (d) of this Rule within fourteen (14) days after
being served with a copy thereof.”). As of today’s date, no objections have been filed.
Pollard is currently incarcerated at SCI-Benner in Centre County, located in the Middle District
of Pennsylvania. See 28 U.S.C. § 118(c). His habeas petition pertains to his conviction and
sentence in the Court of Common Pleas, Luzerne County, for failing to provide accurate
information pursuant to Pennsylvania’s Megan’s Law statute. Luzerne County is also located in
the Middle District of Pennsylvania. See id.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241(d), “[w]here an application for a writ of habeas corpus is
made by a person in custody under the judgment and sentence of a State court of a State which
contains two or more Federal judicial districts, the application may be filed in the district court
for the district wherein such person is in custody or in the district court for the district within
which the State court was held which convicted and sentenced him and each of such district
courts shall have concurrent jurisdiction to entertain the application.” Moreover, a district court
in which a habeas petition is filed may “in the exercise of its discretion and in furtherance of
justice . . . transfer the application to the other district court for hearing and determination.” Id.
This Court does not have jurisdiction over Pollard’s habeas petition, as Pollard was not
convicted and sentenced in this Court, and he is not in custody in this district. See id. The Court
Pollard’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus shall be TRANSFERRED forthwith
to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania;
There has been no substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right
warranting the issuance of a certificate of appealability; and
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to mark this case CLOSED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Juan R. Sánchez.
Juan R. Sánchez, J.
therefore agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the interests of justice would be best served by
transferring the petition to the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Pollard’s petition raises four
claims, all concerning the legality of his sentence. Because Pollard was convicted in Luzerne
County, presumably all state court records, transcripts of proceedings, counsel, and potential
witnesses are located within the Middle District. Pollard himself is also incarcerated in the
Middle District. Accordingly, the Middle District is the most appropriate forum for Pollard to
pursue his habeas petition.
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?