Opinion
Civil Action 21-102J
08-03-2021
JASON ALLEN MAINES, Petitioner, v. MICHAEL ZAKEN, Superintendent; SCI GREENE; and GREGORY J. NEUGEBAUER, Cambria County DA, Respondents.
Stephanie L. Haines District Judge
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION RE: ECF NO. 5
MAUREEN P. KELLY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I. RECOMMENDATION
For the reasons stated below, it is respectfully recommended that Petitioner's Motion for Transfer to Pittsburgh Division, ECF No. 5, be denied without prejudice to seeking additional or alternative relief, if appropriate.
II. REPORT
A. Factual and Procedural Background
Petitioner Jason Allen Maines (“Petitioner”) is a state prisoner currently incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution at Greene (“SCI-Greene”) in Waynesburg, Pennsylvania. Petitioner filed the present Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (the “Petition”) on June 10, 2021, attacking his criminal convictions in the Court of Common Pleas of Cambria County at docket numbers CP-11-CR-0000774-2013 and CP-11-CR-0001919-2013. ECF No. 1 at 1.
Presently before the Court is Petitioner's Motion for Transfer to Pittsburgh Division. ECF No. 5. In this motion, Petitioner moves for transfer of this case from the Johnstown Division of the Western District of Pennsylvania to the Pittsburgh Division of the Western District of Pennsylvania pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a) and (b). ECF No. 5 at 1. Petitioner asserts three reasons for transfer.
First, a former detective involved in Petitioner's underlying criminal cases - and who is the subject of Petitioner's claim under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) - is currently employed as a Court Security Officer (“CSO”) with the Johnstown Division. ECF No. 7 at 1-2. In support of this basis, Petitioner cites to Siehl v. Johnstown, No. 3:18-cv-77, in which Judge Gibson sua sponte recused himself and transferred the suit to the Pittsburgh Division based on the appearance of impropriety due to the same former detective's then-recent employment as a CSO. See Siehl, ECF No. 40. It is notable that, in that case, the CSO was a defendant - not merely a witness - and Judge Gibson was the sole active district judge in Johnstown at the time of transfer.
Second, Petitioner asserts a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel against the attorney who represented him during his underlying criminal trial. That attorney now is an Assistant U.S. Attorney, and “presumably practices frequently before the Johnstown Division of this Court.” ECF No. 7 at 2.
Third, Petitioner speculates that Judge Haines - the district judge who currently is assigned to this case - may have communicated with Petitioner's former fiancée regarding Petitioner's underlying criminal case. If such a communication did occur, it would have been when Judge Haines was serving as an Assistant U.S. Attorney, and prior to her elevation to the federal bench. Id. at 2-3. Petitioner admits ignorance as to whether and to what extent Judge Haines was involved in such discussions. Id. at 2-3.
Counsel for Respondents entered his appearance on July 8, 2021. ECF No. 8. This Court ordered a response to the present motion on July 9, 2021. ECF No. 10. Respondents timely responded in opposition the same day. ECF Nos. 13 and 14. In their opposition brief, Respondents state that:
[w]hile the Respondents maintain that Petitioner has not demonstrated an inconvenience to the parties, nor has he demonstrated that there exists some actual conflict with the Johnstown Division, Petitioner recognizes this Honorable Court's broad discretion relative to an intra-district transfer. For these reasons, while maintaining that no compelling reason exists to change venue, the Respondents would consent to such a transfer provided this Honorable Court identifies some reason for doing so. Respondents nonetheless argue that Petitioner has identified no legal authority nor any persuasive factual reason to change venue.ECF No. 14 at 2. In his timely reply brief, Petitioner seizes on this passage - mischaracterizing it as Respondents' consent - and asserts that it is further reason to transfer this case to Pittsburgh. ECF No. 17 at 1.
Petitioner's motion to transfer is fully briefed, and is ripe for disposition.
B. Legal Standard and Analysis under Section 1404
Statutes regarding the transfer of civil cases, generally, apply to the transfer of habeas cases. See Alston v. Pennsylvania, No. 16-3355, 2017 WL 1243141, at *4 (D.N.J. Jan. 27, 2017) (citing In re Nwanze, 242 F.3d 521, 526 n.2 (3d Cir. 2001)). When considering intra-district transfers, courts weigh the same factors that apply to transfers between districts. Zanghi v. FreightCar Am., Inc., 38 F.Supp.3d 631, 643 (W.D. Pa. 2014). 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a) and (b) state, in pertinent part, that:
(a) For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought or to any district or division to which all parties have consented.
(b) Upon motion, consent or stipulation of all parties, any action, suit or proceeding of a civil nature or any motion or hearing thereof, may be transferred, in the discretion of the court, from the division in which pending to any other division in the same district.Courts are granted wide discretion in determining whether a transfer would increase convenience and serve the interests of justice. See, e.g., Plum Tree, Inc. v. Stockment, 488 F.2d 754, 756 (3d Cir. 1973). The burden to establish entitlement to transfer is on the movant. Jumara v. State Farm Ins. Co., 55 F.3d 873, 879 (3d Cir. 1995).
It is not disputed that venue for this case is proper in both the Johnstown and Pittsburgh Divisions of this Court. Thus, in deciding whether to transfer this case from the former division to the latter, this Court must balance the public and private interest factors set forth in Jumara. The private interests pertain to § 1404(a)'s focus on “the convenience of the parties and witnesses” and include:
[Petitioner's] forum preference as manifested in the original choice; the [Respondents'] preference; whether the claim arose elsewhere; the convenience of the parties as indicated by their relative physical and financial condition; the convenience of the witnesses-but only to the extent that the witnesses may actually be unavailable for trial in one of the fora; and the location of books and records (similarly limited to the extent that the files could not be produced in the alternative forum).Jumara, 55 F.3d at 879 (internal citations omitted); see also Osborne v. Emp. Benefits Admin. Bd. of Kraft Heinz, No. 2:19-CV-00307, 2020 WL 1808270, at *3 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 9, 2020).
The public interests derive from § 1404(a)'s consideration of “the interests of justice, ” and include:
the enforceability of the judgment; practical considerations that could make the trial easy, expeditious, or inexpensive; the relative administrative difficulty in the two fora resulting from court congestion; the local interest in deciding local controversies at home; the public policies of the fora; and the familiarity of the trial judge with the applicable state law in diversity cases.Id. at 879-80 (internal citations omitted); see also Osborne, 2020 WL 1808270, at *3.
In analyzing these factors, the Court further must determine “whether on balance the litigation would more conveniently proceed and the interests of justice be better served by transfer to a different forum.” Jumara, 55 F.3d at 879 (quoting 15 Charles A. Wright, et al., Federal Practice & Procedure § 3847 (2d ed. 1986)). In the context of inter-district transfers in habeas cases, Congress has emphasized the importance of consideration of the furtherance of justice. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d).
Petitioner and Respondents both have articulated their respective preferences for where this case should be litigated. Petitioner prefers Pittsburgh. Respondents prefer Johnstown - although only because they do not believe that Petitioner has articulated a good reason for transfer. Records related to Petitioner's convictions currently are more conveniently accessible in the Johnstown Division, but regardless of the outcome of the present motion, Respondents must make them available to the undersigned in Pittsburgh. See ECF No. 3 at 3-4 (directing Respondents to produce the state court records underlying Petitioner's criminal convictions). While it is unclear, it appears that any witnesses that may testify are located in Johnstown and Cambria County - but in any event, any hearing will take place before the undersigned. Thus, it appear that the private factors generally are balanced between the parties.
Similarly, the public interest factors largely are balanced between the parties because of the undersigned's involvement in this case regardless of the outcome of this motion. This leaves Petitioner's concerns regarding the above-mentioned witnesses as the tipping-point regarding the public interest factors. However, they simply are not enough to weigh the scale in favor of transfer.
While rare, it is not unheard of for this Court to adjudicate disputes involving court employees and attorneys that appear in this district. See, e.g., Jacobs v. Bayha, No. 07-cv-237 (W.D. Pa. filed Feb. 23, 2007) (civil rights lawsuit against U.S. Marshals for alleged use of excessive force during course of underlying federal criminal trial) (aff'd 616 Fed.Appx. 507 (3d Cir. 2015)). Petitioner has failed to demonstrate any reason why he could not fairly examine a CSO and Assistant U.S. Attorney in Johnstown - especially given that those individuals are not parties to this case.
Further, Petitioner's allegations with respect to Judge Haines' possible prior involvement with his underlying criminal cases do not support his motion because they are mere conjecture. Petitioner's invocation of 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(3) in his motion reveals this argument for what it is - a motion for Judge Haines' recusal in this matter. But this Court does not have the authority to force the recusal of a district judge, nor would it based solely on an argument that Petitioner himself acknowledges to be speculation.
Accordingly, Petitioner has failed to meet his burden to demonstrate his entitlement to transfer, and this motion should be denied.
C. Recusal of Judge Haines
This Report should not be construed as including any recommendation regarding the merits of whether Judge Haines should recuse. As such, the denial of the present motion should be without prejudice to Petitioner seeking additional or alternative relief from Judge Haines, if appropriate.
III. CONCLUSION
Based on the reasons herein, it is respectfully recommended that Petitioner's Motion for Transfer to Pittsburgh Division, ECF No. 5, be denied without prejudice to seeking additional or alternative relief, if appropriate.
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. 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 days thereafter in accordance with Local Civil Rule 72.D.2.