APONTE v. COLEMAN et al

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE to the United States District Court for the WEstern District of Pennsylvania. The Clerk of Court shall close this case.Signed by Honorable Malcolm Muir on 6/20/11. (bw, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JAVIER APONTE,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Petitioner
vs.
BRIAN COLEMAN
Respondent

No. 4:CV-11-1105
(Petition Filed 6/09/11)
(Judge Muir)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
June 20, 2011
Petitioner, Javier Aponte, an inmate currently confined in
the

Fayette

State

Correctional

Institution,

LaBelle,

Pennsylvania, filed this pro se petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254.

He challenges a conviction imposed by the Berks County

Court of Common Pleas.

(Doc. 1).

For the reasons outlined

below, the petition will be transferred to the United States
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.
Discussion
“The

federal

habeas

corpus

statute

straightforwardly

provides that the proper respondent to a habeas petition is 'the
person who has custody over [the petitioner].
see

also

§

2243.

.

.

.'[T]hese

28 U.S.C. § 2242,

provisions

contemplate

a

proceeding against some person who has the immediate custody of

the party detained, with the power to produce the body of such
party before the court or judge, that he may be liberated if no
sufficient reason is shown to the contrary.”
Padilla,

124

S.Ct.

2711,

original)(citations omitted).

2717-18

Rumsfeld v.

(2004)(emphasis

in

In Padilla, the Court added that

“[t]he plain language of the habeas statute thus confirms the
general rule that for core habeas petitions challenging present
physical confinement, jurisdiction lies in only one district;
Id. at 2722.

the district of confinement.”

In the present

case, petitioner is confined in SCI-Fayette, which is located
within the confines of the United States District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania.
A court may transfer any civil action for the convenience
of the parties or witnesses, or in the interest of justice, to
any district where the action might have been brought.

28

U.S.C. § 1404(a); See also, Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit of
Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484 (1973).

Because habeas proceedings are

generally considered civil in nature, see Hinton v. Braunskill,
481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987), the term “civil action” includes
habeas petitions.

Parrott v. Government of Virgin Islands, 230

F.3d 615, 620 (3d Cir. 2000).
2

Title 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d)

provides:
(d) 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.
This

Court

clearly

lacks

Superintendent of SCI-Fayette .

jurisdiction

over

the

Thus, under the standards

announced in Padilla, it is apparent to this Court that the
interests of justice would be best served by transferring this
petition to the Western District of Pennsylvania, the district
of petitioner's present confinement.

It is further noted that

there is no indication that the transfer of this petition would
result in any substantial delay.

See Garcia v. Pugh, 948 F.

Supp. 20, 23 (E.D. Pa. 1996). An appropriate Order accompanies
this Memorandum Opinion.

Dated: June 20, 2011

s/Malcolm Muir
MUIR
United States District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JAVIER APONTE,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Petitioner
vs.
BRIAN COLEMAN
Respondent

No. 4:CV-11-1105
(Petition Filed 6/09/11)
(Judge Muir)

ORDER
June 20, 2011
For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1.

The Clerk of Court is directed to TRANSFER
this case to the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

2.

The Clerk of Court shall CLOSE this case.

s/Malcolm Muir
MUIR
United States District Judge