Summary
recommending transfer of § 2254 petition challenging actions of Parole Board and not underlying conviction to the Middle District of Pennsylvania where petitioner and his custodian were located
Summary of this case from Josey v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & ParoleOpinion
Civil Action No. 04-3771.
October 26, 2004
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Presently before the Court is a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Charles E. Dockins. Petitioner is currently incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution in Frackville, Pennsylvania ("SCI-Mahanoy"). For the reasons which follow, the habeas petition should be transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
DISCUSSION
Title 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d) provides:
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 district courts 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.See Gellock v. Freeman, 1987 WL 7208, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 27, 1987). In the present case, petitioner is incarcerated at SCI-Mahanoy in Frackville, Pennsylvania, see Hab. Pet. at 1, which is located in Schuylkill County. See In re Coats, 849 A.2d 254, 255 (Pa.Super. 2004) (observing that SCI-Mahanoy is located in Schuylkill County); Owens v. Shannon, 808 A.2d 607, 608 (Pa.Commw. 2002) (same). Schuylkill County lies within the venue of the Middle District of Pennsylvania. See 28 U.S.C. § 118(b). Thus, petitioner and his custodian are located in the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
Although petitioner may have been convicted by a state court within the Eastern District, petitioner is presently challenging subsequent actions of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole ("Board"). See Hab Pet. ¶ 12; see also id. at 11 ¶ 15 ("This is a matter solely against the parole board of Pa. . . ."); id. at 12 ¶ 17 ("This is a parole matter"); Letter dated 8/15/04 from Pet'r to Clerk of this Court ("This is a matter against the Pa. Parole Board"). Under the circumstances in the present case, it would be more practical and equitable to transfer petitioner's application to the Middle District of Pennsylvania since that is where petitioner and his custodian are located. See Gellock, 1987 WL 7208, at *1 (transferring § 2254 petition to district where petitioner and custodian were located); Yacoubian v. Petsock, 1986 WL 2564, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 25, 1986) (same). Among other things, the inconvenience of transferring petitioner from Frackville, Pennsylvania to Philadelphia for any hearings makes the Middle District a more appropriate forum. See Gellock, 1987 WL 7208, at *1; Yacoubian, 1986 WL 2564, at *1. Accordingly, this petition should be transferred, in the interest of justice, to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). See Gellock, 1987 WL 7208, at *1;Yacoubian, 1986 WL 2564, at *1.
The habeas petition alleges that petitioner was convicted of robbery and burglary in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas in May of 1972 and that he was sentenced to twenty to forty (20-40) years in prison. See Hab. Pet. ¶¶ 1-6.
My Recommendation follows.
RECOMMENDATION
AND NOW, this day of October, 2004, upon consideration of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, for the reasons given in the accompanying Report, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.