White v. Director TDCJ

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING VENUE. This matter is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. Signed by Magistrate Judge Keith F. Giblin on 10/29/14. (ljw, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
LUFKIN DIVISION
IRVINE P. WHITE

§

VS.

§

WILLIAM STEPHENS

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:13cv299

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING VENUE
Irvine P. White, an inmate confined at the Eastham Unit of the
Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions
Division, proceeding pro se, filed this petition for writ of habeas
corpus.

Petitioner is challenging a detainer lodged with his

custodian by Oklahoma authorities as a result of an indictment
returned against him in Cotton County, Oklahoma.
habeas

petition,

the

court

petitioner or the custodian.
(5th Cir. 1990).

must

have

To entertain a

jurisdiction

over

the

United States v. Gabor, 905 F.2d 76

When a prisoner is confined in one state and

challenges a detainer which has been lodged against him by another
state, the prisoner is deemed to be "in custody" in the charging
state by virtue of the detainer.
426 (2004)

(citing

Braden

v.

Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484 (1973)).

See Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S.
30th

Judicial

Circuit

Court

of

"Under Braden, then, a habeas

petitioner who challenges a form of 'custody' other than present
physical confinement may name as the respondent the entity or
person who exercises legal control with respect to the challenged
'custody.'"

Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 410 U.S. at 438.

In this case, petitioner is confined within the territorial
jurisdiction of this court, but is challenging a detainer which has

been lodged against him by Oklahoma authorities. As a result, both
this court and the United States District Court for the Western
District

of

Oklahoma,

where

Cotton

County

is

located,

have

concurrent jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court in Braden addressed a similar situation and
concluded that while the federal court in the district of confinement

may

exercise

concurrent

jurisdiction,

the

district

of

confinement will not ordinarily prove as convenient as the district
court in the state which has lodged the detainer.

Braden, 410 U.S.

at 499, n.15.
As

all

witnesses

and

evidence

relating

to

petitioner's

challenge to his detainer are located in the Western District of
Oklahoma, the court is of the opinion this matter should be
transferred to the federal court located in such district.
ORDER
For the reasons set forth above, it is
ORDERED that this matter is TRANSFERRED to the United States
District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma.
Hello This is a Test
SIGNED this
29 day of

October

, 2014.

KEITH F. GIBLIN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2