Venegas v. Thaler
Filing
41
OPINION AND ORDER denying 39 Motion to Change Venue.(Signed by Magistrate Judge B. Janice Ellington) Parties notified.(amireles, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
JUSTIN LEIGH VENEGAS,
Petitioner,
VS.
WILLIAM STEPHENS,
Respondent.
§
§
§
§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:12-CV-306
§
§
§
§
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE
Pending is Petitioner’s motion for a change of venue to his district of incarceration
(D.E. 39). The venue provisions for a Section 2254 petition are governed by 28 U.S.C. §
2241(d):
(d) Where an application for a writ of habeas corpus is made by a person
in custody under the judgment and sentence of a State court of a State
which contains two or more Federal judicial districts, the application may
be filed in the district court for the district wherein such person is in
custody or in the district court for the district within which the State court
was held which convicted and sentenced him and each of such districts
shall have concurrent jurisdiction to entertain the application. The district
court for the district wherein such an application is filed in the exercise of
its discretion and in furtherance of justice may transfer the application to
the other district court for hearing and determination.
28 U.S.C. § 2241(d); Wadsworth v. Johnson, 235 F.3d 959, 961 (5th Cir. 2000).
Petitioner chose to file his petition in the district of conviction. It was not
transferred here. He moved for a change of venue after receiving an unfavorable
recommendation on his petition. His motion does not appear to be a search for justice;
rather Petitioner appears to be shopping for a more favorable forum.
1/2
In any event, it is more convenient for the petition to be heard in the Corpus
Christi Division of the Southern District of Texas. The records of Petitioner’s conviction,
the prosecutor, the defense lawyer, and the witnesses are located in the Corpus Christi
Division of the Southern District of Texas. If an evidentiary hearing is required, it would
be more convenient for TDCJ to move Petitioner to the Corpus Christi Division for the
hearing than it would for all the witnesses to travel to the district of Petitioner’s
incarceration. The interests of justice and the convenience of the witnesses would not be
furthered by a transfer of venue. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404, 2241(d).
Accordingly, the motion for a change of venue (D.E. 39) is DENIED in all things.
ORDERED this 28th day of August, 2013.
___________________________________
B. JANICE ELLINGTON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
2/2
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?