Martin v. USA
Filing
3
MEMORANDUM OPINION regarding transfer. Signed by Magistrate Judge Zack Hawthorn on 5/20/2015. (bjc, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BEAUMONT DIVISION
JIMMY DALE MARTIN
§
VS.
§
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:15cv74
MEMORANDUM OPINION REGARDING TRANSFER
Petitioner Jimmy Dale Martin, an inmate confined at the Federal Correctional Complex in
Terre Haute, Indiana, proceeding pro se, brings this petition for writ of habeas corpus.
Discussion
On October 16, 1992, following a trial by jury in the Eastern District of Texas, the court
entered a judgment convicting petitioner of conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine, possession
of a firearm by a convicted felon, and use of a firearm during a drug trafficking crime. Petitioner
was sentenced to a term of life imprisonment plus five years. See United States v. Martin, Criminal
Action Number 1:92cr40 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 16, 1992).
Petitioner submitted this petition asserting he is actually innocent of the charges for which
he has now served twenty-three years of a life sentence.
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 in the Federal Correctional Institution located in Terre Haute,
Indiana where he was located when he submitted the petition. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 113, Terre
Haute is located within the jurisdictional boundaries of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana. As petitioner is not incarcerated in the Eastern District of Texas, this
court is without jurisdiction to consider 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 the case for lack of jurisdiction.1 An Order of Transfer so providing shall be
entered in accordance with this Memorandum Order.
SIGNED this 20th day of May, 2015.
_________________________
Zack Hawthorn
United States Magistrate Judge
1
Under other circumstances, the court would consider interpreting this petition as a motion to vacate sentence
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255; however, petitioner has filed two previous motions to vacate sentence. Thus, petitioner must
receive permission from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals before he can proceed with another motion to vacate. Therefore,
this court is also without jurisdiction to entertain a motion to vacate filed by petitioner.
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?