From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Thomas v. Ashcroft

United States District Court, E.D. New York
Jun 3, 2002
CV 02-3041 (RR) (MDG) (E.D.N.Y. Jun. 3, 2002)

Opinion

CV 02-3041 (RR)(MDG)

June 3, 2002

GEORGE KENNETH THOMAS, F.D.C. Oakdale, Oakdale, LA, Petitioner Pro Se

HONORABLE ALAN VINEGRAD, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, One Pierrepont Plaza, Brooklyn, New York, attorney for Respondents


Memorandum and ORDER


Petitioner, George Kenneth Thomas, a resident alien who is now incarcerated in the Immigration and Naturalization Service's ("INS") Oakdak, Louisiana holding facility, petitions this court for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 vacating the order of deportation pending against him. Thomas further moves for an emergency stay of deportation pending the outcome of his § 2241 petition. Petitioner asserts that his current INS detention is improper because he was not taken into INS custody immediately upon his release from prison. He further argues that the INS deportation order in his case was obtained in violation of the Constitution's Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. After a careful review of Thomas's documents, the court concludes that even if this court has jurisdiction over Thomas's suit, his action is more appropriately venued in the Western District of Louisiana.

Factors to be considered in determining the appropriate venue for a § 2241 petition include (1) where the material events at issue took place, (2) where records and witnesses relevant to petitioner's claim are to be found, and (3) the convenience of the forum for both petitioner and respondent. See Henderson v. INS. 157 F.3d 106, 128 n. 25 (2d Cir. 1998) (citing Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484, 493-94 (1973)); 28 U.S.C. § 1404 (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."). Applying these factors to this case, it is apparent that the convenience of the parties and the interests of justice are best served by transferring this case to the Western District of Louisiana.

Thomas's proposed basis for venue in this district is his one time residence in the Bronx. The Bronx, however, falls within the Southern District of New York, rather than this district. After being released from New York State prison upon the completion of his sentence for attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance imposed by the New York State Supreme Court, County of the Bronx, Thomas was removed from the Bronx to the Oakdale facility for removal hearings before an INS Immigration Judge. It is those Oakdale proceedings that Thomas challenges in his § 2241 proceedings. Thus, the events material to petitioner's § 2241 claim all occurred in Louisiana, all material witnesses to his claim are located there, and the site is the most convenient forum for petitioner since that is where he is presently detained.

In the exercise of discretion and in furtherance of justice, this court hereby transfers this petition to the Western District of Louisiana. See 28 U.S.C. § 1404 (a). The provision of Rule 83.1 of the Local Rules for the Eastern District of New York requiring a five-day delay in the transfer of relevant case materials is waived. Upon prompt transfer of the case, the Clerk of the Court is to mark the case closed.

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Thomas v. Ashcroft

United States District Court, E.D. New York
Jun 3, 2002
CV 02-3041 (RR) (MDG) (E.D.N.Y. Jun. 3, 2002)
Case details for

Thomas v. Ashcroft

Case Details

Full title:GEORGE KENNETH THOMAS, Petitioner v. JOHN ASHCROFT, United States Attorney…

Court:United States District Court, E.D. New York

Date published: Jun 3, 2002

Citations

CV 02-3041 (RR) (MDG) (E.D.N.Y. Jun. 3, 2002)