Pack v. Rozum et al

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry) (eo)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CHARLES PACK,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Petitioner,
v.
GERALD L. ROZUM, et al.,
Respondents.

1:14-cv-270
Hon. John E. Jones III

MEMORANDUM
February 24, 2014
Petitioner Charles Pack (“Petitioner” or “Pack”), an inmate presently
confined at the State Correctional Institution in Somerset, Pennsylvania (“SCI
Somerset”), initiated the above captioned pro se action by filing a Petition for Writ
of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1).
Named as Respondents are Gerald L. Rozum and the Pennsylvania State Attorney
General. (Id.). Petitioner has paid the filing fee. For the reasons discussed below,
the Court will transfer the Petition to the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
I. Background
On May 17, 2010, Petitioner was convicted of murder in the second degree,
burglary, robbery, and two counts of criminal conspiracy in the Court of Common
Pleas of Lehigh County, Pennsylvania. (Doc. 1). On June 22, 2010, Petitioner was

sentenced to life in prison plus thirty two and one-half (32 ½) to eighty (80) years.
(Id.). Petitioner is challenging this conviction and/or sentence in his instant habeas
petition. (Id.).
II. Discussion
For state prisoners who seek to contest some aspect of their state sentences,
28 U.S.C. §2241(d) specifies where habeas corpus petitions should be filed, and
provides as follows:
Where 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. The district court for the
district wherein such an application is filed in the exercise of its discretion
and in furtherance of justice may transfer the application to the other district
court for hearing and determination.
28 U.S.C. § 2241(d).
Thus, state prisoner habeas corpus petitions may be brought in the federal
judicial district in which the state court of the conviction is located or, when the
prisoner is confined in a prison located in another federal district in the same state
as the state of conviction, the petition may also be brought in the district of
confinement. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). However, § 2241(d) also provides that the
district court for the district in which the petition is filed may “in furtherance of
justice” transfer the petition to the federal district court in which the state court of
2

the conviction is located. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). See also Miller v. Hambrick, 905
F.2d 259, 262 (9th Cir. 1990). The United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit has also “note[d] that it is quite clear that ordinarily a transfer of a [habeas]
proceeding relating to the validity of the petitioner's conviction from the district of
confinement to the district of sentencing would be in furtherance of the
convenience of the parties and witnesses.” In re Nwanze, 242 F.3d 521, 526 n.2
(3d Cir. 2001) (internal citations omitted).
In this case, Petitioner is a state prisoner who is housed in the Western
District of Pennsylvania but who is challenging a state conviction he received from
Lehigh County in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. As such, the Middle
District of Pennsylvania is not the district of confinement; nor is it the district in
which Petitioner’s conviction occurred. While we could transfer the case to the
Western District or Eastern District, the conviction and underlying state case are
matters that fall under the territorial jurisdiction of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. 28 U.S.C. §118(a). Since this offense,
state prosecution, and sentencing all took place in the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, it would be in the interest of justice to transfer this petition to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. 28 U.S.C. §
2241(d). See also Miller, 905 F.2d at 262 (9th Cir. 1990). An appropriate Order
will enter on today’s date.
3