Hatcher v. Sullivan County Jail

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, finding that the venue for a writ of habeas corpus lies in the district where a petitioner's judgment of conviction was entered or the district wherein petitioner is incarcerated. In this case, it appea rs that Sullivan County, Tennessee, which lies within the Northeastern Division of this district. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Clerk transfer this case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, at Greeneville, forthwith. Signed by Chief District Judge Thomas A Varlan on 4/10/15. (c/m) (ADA)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE SHAMSIDDEEN HATCHER, Petitioner, v. SULLIVAN COUNTY, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No.: 3:15-CV-59-TAV-HBG MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This is a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 2254 [Doc. 2]. The petitioner, who is incarcerated in a state prison in Sullivan County, Tennessee, is challenging his 2014 Bristol, Tennessee conviction for simple assault [Doc. 2]. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d), venue for a writ of habeas corpus lies in the district where a petitioner’s judgment of conviction was entered or the district wherein petitioner is incarcerated. In this case, it appears that Sullivan County, Tennessee, which lies within the Northeastern Division of this district, is both the district where the petitioner's conviction was entered and where he is incarcerated. Therefore, it is in the interests of justice, and more convenient for the parties and potential witnesses, that this case be transferred to the Northeastern Division. See 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Clerk transfer this case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, at Greeneville, forthwith. ENTER: s/ Thomas A. Varlan CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

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?