Arzate-Miranda v. Federal Bureau of Prisons
Filing
4
MEMORANDUM OPINION regarding transfer. Signed by Magistrate Judge Earl S. Hines on 6/30/2011. (bjc, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BEAUMONT DIVISION
RIGOBERTO ARZATE-MIRANDA
§
VS.
§
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:11cv294
MEMORANDUM OPINION REGARDING TRANSFER
Petitioner Rigoberto Arzate-Miranda, an inmate confined in the United States Penitentiary
located in Inez, Kentucky, proceeding pro se, filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
Discussion
Petitioner alleges he received an incident report, #1959627, on December 25, 2009, while
he was confined at the Federal Correctional Complex located in Beaumont, Texas. At the time he
filed this petition, however, petitioner was located at the United States Penitentiary in Inez,
Kentucky.
Analysis
Title 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a) provides that "[w]rits of habeas corpus may be granted by the
Supreme Court, any justice thereof, the district courts and any circuit judge within their respective
jurisdictions." "To entertain a § 2241 habeas petition, the district court must, upon the filing of the
petition, have jurisdiction over the prisoner or his custodian." United States v. Gabor, 905 F.2d 76,
78 (5th Cir. 1990) (citation omitted). A § 2241 petition must be filed in the district where the
petitioner is incarcerated. Id.; Hooker v. Sivley, 187 F.3d 680, 682 (5th Cir. 1999).
Petitioner is currently confined at the United States Penitentiary in Inez, Kentucky where he
was located when he submitted the petition. The city of Inez is located within the jurisdictional
boundaries of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. As petitioner
is not incarcerated in the Eastern District of Texas, this court is without jurisdiction to consider
1
petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus; subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived. See
DeCell & Associates v. F.D.I.C., 36 F.3d 464, 471 (5th Cir. 1991).
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), for the convenience of parties and witnesses and in the interest
of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it could
have been brought. Such a transfer may be done sua sponte and is reviewable only for an abuse of
discretion. Mills v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 886 F.2d 758, 761 (5th Cir. 1989).
After considering the circumstances, the court has determined that the interests of justice
would best be served if this petition were transferred to the district in which the petitioner is confined
rather than dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. An Order of Transfer so providing shall be entered in
accordance with this Memorandum Order.
Hello This is a Test
SIGNED this 30
day of
June
, 2011.
EARL S. HINES
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE 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?