Santos v. DiGuglielmo

Full title: JOSE LUIS SANTOS [EQ-7256], v. DAIVD DiGUGLIELMO, et al

Court: United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Date published: Nov 7, 2006

CIVIL ACTION NO. 06-4182 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 7, 2006)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 06-4182.

November 7, 2006

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

DAVID STRAWBRIDGE, Magistrate Judge

Before the Court is the pro se petition of Jose Luis Santos ("Santos" or "Petitioner") for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on September 16, 2006. Petitioner is incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution at Graterford, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. (Doc. No. 1 at 1.) The petition asserts multiple claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, appears to set forth a Batson claim, and asserts that DNA evidence excludes him as the perpetrator of the crime for which he was convicted. (Doc. No. 1 at 9.)¹ The judgment of conviction that is under attack by Petitioner, however, was entered in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania. (Doc. No. 1 at 4.)

1 The petition was accompanied by copies of various laboratory reports and medical records, as well as a motion for appointment of counsel (due to Petitioner's alleged mental impairments and memory loss following an accident) and a motion to stay proceedings pending a ruling on the appointment of counsel request.

A petitioner may file a habeas corpus petition in either the district court for the district where he is in custody or in the district court for the district in which he was convicted. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). Two district courts may have concurrent jurisdiction if the petitioner is in custody in one district and was convicted in a different district. Id. In that instance, the district court in which the petition was filed may transfer the petition to the other "in the exercise of its discretion and in furtherance of justice." Id.

Here, Santos is incarcerated in this judicial district but was convicted and sentenced in Dauphin County, which is located in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. See 28 U.S.C. § 118(b). The claims which Santos presents in his habeas petition deal with the constitutionality of his conviction, sentence, and appeal. Since the records of his conviction and appeal are located in the Middle District of Pennsylvania and the District Attorney of Dauphin County would be in the best position to respond to his petition, it is in the interests of justice to transfer this petition to the Middle District.

Therefore, I make the following:

RECOMMENDATION

AND NOW, this 7^th day of November, 2006, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be transferred to the Middle District of Pennsylvania.