Reininger v. Jenkins et al Do Not Docket. Case electronically transferred to the District of New Jersey.

Filing 8

ORDER TO TRANSFER CASE to District of New Jersey (Signed by Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos) Parties notified.(mserpa, 2)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
DUSTIN REININGER,
Petitioner,
VS.
STUART JENKINS, et al,
Respondents.

§
§
§
§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14-CV-356
§
§
§
§

OPINION AND ORDER TRANSFERRING PETITION
TO THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Petitioner, a resident of Rockport, Aransas County, Texas, has filed a § 2254
Petition challenging his firearms and related convictions and five-year sentence imposed
by a court in the State of New Jersey (D.E. 1). According to the website for the New
Jersey State Parole Board, Petitioner is on parole supervision until November 15, 2014.1
He satisfies the “in custody” requirements for filing a § 2254 petition. See Jones v.
Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236, 242 (1963) (custody requirement satisfied by release on
parole). In this action, Petitioner does not challenge his release on parole, the calculation
of his parole termination date, or any of the conditions of his parole; rather he challenges
the legality of his state court convictions (D.E. 1).
In a Section 2254 proceeding, the proper Respondent is generally the immediate
custodian, or warden of the facility where the Petitioner is physically held. Rule 2, Rules
Governing Section 2254 Cases. Petitioner is on parole in New Jersey, but subject to
courtesy supervision by the Texas parole authorities. He has named as Respondents
1

http://www.state.nj.us/parole.

1/3

Stuart Jenkins, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Parole, and James T.
Plousis, Chairman of the New Jersey State Parole Board.
The jurisprudence developed beginning with Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court
of Ky, 410 U.S. 484, 495 (1973), makes it clear that Petitioner’s action should be heard
and decided in the District of New Jersey. Braden recognized an exception to the
immediate custodian rule where the immediate custodian is not the person who is holding
the petitioner in what is alleged to be unlawful custody. 410 U.S. at 494-501. In Braden,
the petitioner was detained in an Alabama prison on an Alabama conviction but was
challenging his right to a speedy trial on a Kentucky charge. The Supreme Court held
that the officials in Kentucky, and not the petitioner’s immediate physical custodian, were
the proper respondents. Id. The Supreme Court affirmed the petitioner’s original choice
of forum, the courts in Kentucky, even though petitioner was confined in Alabama. Id.
Present in this case but missing in Braden is the added dilemma that this Court,
located in the Southern District of Texas, does not have jurisdiction over any parole
officials in New Jersey, or the Attorney General for the State of New Jersey, or the state
itself. See Norris v. State of Ga., 522 F.2d 1006, 1010 (4th Cir. 1975) (District Court had
no jurisdiction over the states of Georgia and Louisiana and their prosecuting officials
when petitioner incarcerated in North Carolina filed habeas action in North Carolina
challenging pending criminal charges in Georgia and Louisiana). Accord Holder v.
Curley, 749 F.Supp.2d 644 (E.D. Mich. 2010) (habeas petition filed by petitioner
incarcerated in Michigan but challenging Pennsylvania conviction would be transferred
to the Middle District of Pennsylvania); Downer v. Cramer, No. 2:09cv106-P-A, 2009
2/3

WL 2922996 (N.D. Miss. Sept. 2, 2009) (unpublished) (transferring petition filed by
Mississippi prisoner challenging California conviction back to California pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1404(a) because the proper respondent was the State of California, California
law and procedures govern, and all records, evidence, witnesses, prosecutors, and defense
attorneys are in California).
Additionally, for the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of
justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where
it might have been brought. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a) and 1406(a). In this case, the records
of Petitioner’s conviction, the witnesses, the lawyers, the prosecutors, and the evidence
are located in New Jersey. Petitioner’s true custodian, the parole authorities in New
Jersey, are located there. Finally, though petitioner is on parole, he is not in physical
custody in Texas, and if his presence is required in New Jersey, he can travel there. The
interests of justice compel a transfer.
Accordingly, this case is transferred to the District of New Jersey.

ORDERED this 29th day of August, 2014.

___________________________________
NELVA GONZALES RAMOS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3/3