Opinion
Civil Action No. 20-1953
01-11-2021
MATTHEW ALLEN LAWTON, Petitioner, v. SUPERINTENDENT BRAINT and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondents.
District Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
I. RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully recommended that the Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus By a Person In State Custody ("the Petition") be transferred forthwith to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania because that is the District wherein Petitioner's state court conviction was obtained, and, as such, it is the more convenient forum for litigation of the underlying allegations of the Petition.
II. REPORT
Matthew Allen Lawton. ("Petitioner") currently is incarcerated in the State Correctional Institution at Frackville, Pennsylvania ("SCI-Frackville"), which is within the territorial boundaries of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. See 28 U.S.C. § 118(b). In the Petition, Petitioner challenges the validity of his conviction, which was obtained in the Court of Common Pleas of Potter County, which also is located within the territorial boundaries of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. See ECF No. 1 at 1; see also 28 U.S.C. § 118(b). Because that conviction arose out of Potter County, the interests of justice weigh in favor of transferring this case to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
The power of this Court to grant the writ is founded upon 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a) which provides that the "[w]rits of habeas corpus may be granted by the Supreme Court, any justice thereof, the district courts and any circuit judge within their respective jurisdictions." (emphasis added).
At the time of the commencement of this action, Petitioner was in prison at SCI-Frackville. Consequently, the Middle District has "jurisdiction" to entertain this petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). See also Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 443 (2004) ("§ 2241(d) provides that when a petitioner is serving a state criminal sentence in a State that contains more than one federal district, he may file a habeas petition not only 'in the district court for the district wherein [he] is in custody,' but also '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.'").
Section 2241(d) provides that:
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.
Subject matter jurisdiction of the Petition lies within the United States Middle District of Pennsylvania, and not in the Western District of Pennsylvania. Further, section 2241(d) grants the court where a habeas petition is filed the authority to "transfer the application to the other district court for hearing and determination" in "the exercise of its discretion and in furtherance of justice[.]" Accordingly, rather than dismissing this Petition for lack of jurisdiction (and further exposing the Petitioner to the AEDPA's unforgiving statute of limitations), this Court finds that the interests of justice weigh in favor of transferring this case to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, where jurisdiction is proper.
III. CONCLUSION
Based on the considerations set forth herein, it is recommended that this case be transferred forthwith to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania forthwith.
In accordance with the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and Local Rule 72.D.2, the parties are permitted to file written objections in accordance with the schedule established in the docket entry reflecting the filing of this Report and Recommendation. Objections are to be submitted to the Clerk of Court, United States District Court, 700 Grant Street, Room 3110, Pittsburgh, PA 15219. Failure to timely file objections will waive the right to appeal. Brightwell v. Lehman, 637 F.3d 187, 193 n. 7 (3d Cir. 2011). Any party opposing objections may file their response to the objections within fourteen (14) days thereafter in accordance with Local Civil Rule 72.D.2. Dated: January 11, 2021
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Maureen P . Kelly
MAUREEN P. KELLY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE cc: The Honorable J. Nicholas Ranjan
United States District Judge
MATTHEW ALLEN LAWTON
KS0208
SCI - Frackville
1111 Altamont Blvd
Frackville, PA 17931