Venable v. Dretke

Full title: REGGIE VENABLE v. DOUGLAS DRETKE, Director, Texas Department of Criminal…

Court: United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division

Date published: Jul 14, 2004

No. 3-04-CV-909-G (N.D. Tex. Jul. 14, 2004)

Opinion

No. 3-04-CV-909-G.

July 14, 2004

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

WILLIAM SANDERSON, Magistrate Judge

Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and an order of the District Court in implementation thereof, the subject cause has previously been referred to the United States Magistrate Judge. The findings, conclusions and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, as evidenced by his signature thereto, are as follows:

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS:

Type Case: This is a petition for habeas corpus relief brought by a state prisoner pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

Statement of the Case: In his petition Venable alleges that he was denied due process in relation to prison disciplinary actions taken against him resulting in sanctions being imposed. In response to this court's show cause order Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss the instant petition for lack of jurisdiction.

Findings and Conclusions: Venable is currently confined at the Hughes Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division at Gatesville, Texas, serving a conviction for aggravated sexual assault for which he was sentenced to a term of 90 years imprisonment in the 27^th Judicial District Court of Bell County, Texas, on August 19, 1986. The disciplinary actions of which Petitioner complains occurred while confined at the Hughes Unit. Both Bell County in which he was convicted and Coryell County in which the Hughes Unit is located lie within the Western District of Texas, Waco Division.

Respondent correctly notes that this court does not have jurisdiction over the petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d) permits a confined person to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus either in the district in which he was convicted or the district where in the person is confined. It is quite clear that the Northern District of Texas does not have jurisdiction to entertain the petition, and accordingly Respondent's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction should be granted. See Wadsworth v. Johnson, 235 F.3d 959, 961-62 (5^th Cir. 2000).

RECOMMENDATION:

For the foregoing reasons it is recommended that the petition be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

A copy of this recommendation shall be transmitted to Petitioner and counsel for Respondent.