Opinion
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER TRANSFERRING PETITION
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II, District Judge.
Petitioner is a federal prisoner who has filed a habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2241. Petitioner was convicted in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. On July 23, 2007, he was sentenced to 87 months in prison. He is currently serving that sentence in the Federal Correctional Complex in Victorville, California. [Petition at 1-2].
This petition does not challenge petitioner's federal conviction or sentence. Nor does it challenge the execution of his federal sentence by the Bureau of Prisons. Instead, the petition alleges that Clark County, Nevada officials have refused to bring petitioner to trial in violation of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act. [Petition at 3]. Although not entirely clear, it appears that Clark County has filed charges against petitioner for battery on a taxicab driver. Petitioner seeks an order compelling the State of Nevada to bring him to trial on those charges. [Petition at 4-5].
While this Court currently has jurisdiction over petitioner because he is incarcerated in this district, the issue remains whether this Court is the proper forum to litigate petitioner's claim. As discussed, petitioner was not convicted in this district, nor is he challenging the legality of his present confinement in federal prison. Rather, he is challenging the detainer lodged against him (or the failure to lodge a detainer) by Nevada authorities. The most appropriate forum for such a challenge is the district court located in the State of Nevada, where the charges against petitioner were filed and where petitioner seeks to enforce his right to a speedy trial. See United States ex rel. Meadows v. New York , 426 F.2d 1176, 1182-1183 (2d Cir. 1970)(best court to consider challenge to interstate detainer is the district court located in the state which lodged the detainer); see generally Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky , 410 U.S. 484, 494-499 (1973). Considering all the circumstances, the convenience of the parties and the interests of justice weighs in favor of transferring this action to the United States Court for the District of Nevada. See 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
It is so ordered.