Cammack v. Heirholzer
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S ORDER. Plaintiff's claims are TRANSFERRED to the Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division. Signed by Judge Michael H. Schneider on 7/13/16. (ljw, ) [Transferred from Texas Eastern on 7/14/2016.]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
KERR COUNTY SHERIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:16-CV-90
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S APPEAL OF
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S ORDER
Petitioner, Susan-Rebecca Cammack, proceeding pro se, filed what appeared to be a petition
for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Although not stated explicitly in the
petition, it appears petitioner is a pre-trial detainee at the Kerr County Jail based on the address
On June 24, 2016, the Magistrate Judge to whom this case was referred entered an order
requiring venue in this case be transferred to the Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division.
Petitioner objected to this order arguing venue should remain in the Eastern District of Texas, Lufkin
Division, as that is where petitioner filed the suit “in equity.”
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, a judge
of the court may reconsider any pretrial matter referred to a magistrate judge under subparagraph (A)
where it has been shown that the magistrate judge’s order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
Having examined the allegations in petitioner’s appeal of the Magistrate Judge’s order, this
Court finds no support for petitioner’s objections. Section 2241 pre-conviction habeas petitions can
be filed only in the federal district where the petitioner is in custody. Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S.
426, 442-43 (2004). Petitioner appears to be confined as a pre-trial detainee at the Kerr County Jail
in Kerr County which is located within the Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division. Venue
is, therefore, not proper in the Eastern District of Texas, Lufkin Division. A District Court “may
transfer the application for hearing and determination to the district court having jurisdiction to
entertain it.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(b).
The Court finds the order of the Magistrate Judge neither clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
According, petitioner’s appeal of the Magistrate Judge’s order should be denied. It is, therefore,
ORDERED that petitioner’s objections are OVERRULED and petitioner’s appeal of the
Magistrate Judge’s order is DISMISSED. Plaintiff’s claims are TRANSFERRED to the Western
District of Texas, San Antonio Division.
SIGNED this 13th day of July, 2016.
MICHAEL H. SCHNEIDER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT 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?