Brown v. USA
MEMORANDUM OPINION regarding transfer. Signed by Magistrate Judge Keith F. Giblin on 3/29/2017. (bjc, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BILLY RAY BROWN
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16cv494
MEMORANDUM OPINION REGARDING TRANSFER
Petitioner Billy Ray Brown, an inmate confined at the Federal Correctional Institution in
Seagoville, Texas, proceeding pro se, brings this petition for writ of habeas corpus.
On February 3, 2012, in the Eastern District of Texas, following a plea of guilty pursuant
to a written plea agreement, the court entered a judgment convicting petitioner of maintaining a drug
involved premise. Petitioner was sentenced to a term of 240 months’ imprisonment. See United
States v. Brown, Criminal Action Number 1:11cr31 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 3, 2012).
Petitioner submitted this petition seeking pre-sentence and post-sentence custody credit for
time he claims he spent in custody of the Unites States Probation Department.
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 Seagoville,
Texas where he was located when he submitted the petition. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 124, Seagoville
is located within the jurisdictional boundaries of the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas. 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.
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. An Order of Transfer so providing shall be
entered in accordance with this Memorandum Order.
SIGNED this the 29th day of March, 2017.
KEITH F. GIBLIN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?