Hoza v. Stephens

Filing 5

ORDER TO TRANSFER CASE to Houston Division (Signed by Judge Gregg Costa) Parties notified.(ccarnew, 3)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
GALVESTON DIVISION
STANLEY PHILLIP HOZA,
Petitioner,
VS.
WILLIAM STEPHENS,
Respondent.

§
§
§
§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14-CV-131
§
§
§
§

ORDER TO TRANSFER
The petitioner, Stanley Hoza, is a state prisoner incarcerated in the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice - Correctional Institutions Division (collectively,
“TDCJ”).

Hoza filed this action seeking a federal writ of habeas corpus to

challenge a 1995 conviction of aggravated sexual assault of a child in the 183rd
District Court of Harris County, Texas. After reviewing the petition and the
applicable law, the Court concludes that his case must be transferred for the
reasons stated below.
Because the petitioner is confined pursuant to a judgment and sentence by a
state court in Texas, which has more than one federal district, jurisdiction over the
petition is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d), which provides as follows:
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
1/3

district courts shall have concurrent jurisdiction to entertain this
application.
The Fifth Circuit has clarified that under § 2241(d), a petitioner may seek a
federal writ of habeas corpus in one of only two places: (1) in the district in which
the state court conviction was entered, or (2) the district within which the petitioner
is incarcerated. See Wadsworth v. Johnson, 235 F.3d 959, 962 (5th Cir. 2000).
Although the statute speaks only to districts, the Fifth Circuit has extended the rule
found in § 2241(d) to divisions within the same district as well. See Mitchell v.
Henderson, 432 F.2d 435, 436 (5th Cir. 1970) (concluding that the division of
conviction where witnesses were located was a more appropriate venue than the
division of confinement in challenge to the conviction).
A district court for the district in which an application for habeas corpus
relief has been filed may, in the exercise of it discretion and in furtherance of
justice, transfer the petition to another appropriate district court for hearing and
determination. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). This Court concludes that justice would
be better served if this case were transferred to the Houston Division of the
Southern District of Texas, where the state court in which the petitioner was
convicted and sentenced is located. See Story v. Collins, 920 F.2d 1247, 1250 (5th
Cir. 1991); Bell v. Watkins, 692 F.2d 999, 1013 (5th Cir), cert. denied sub nom.;
Bell v. Thigpen, 464 U.S. 843 (1983); see also Southern District of Texas, General
Order of May 30, 1985 (“If, after review of the application, the convicting court is
2/3

found to be outside this district, this Court will transfer the application for writ of
habeas

corpus to the

District where the applicant was convicted.”).

Accordingly, this case is TRANSFERRED to the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division.
It is so ORDERED.
SIGNED this 21st day of April, 2014.

___________________________________

Gregg Costa
United States District Judge

3/3