Opinion
Civil Action 21-1860
01-24-2022
KEVIN WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. KINGS COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE; COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania; and SUPERINTENDENT DEREK F. OBERANDER, et al., Respondents.
DAVID S. CERCONE, DISTRICT JUDGE
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
MAUREEN P. KELLY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I. RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully recommended that the “Supplemental Amendment to Writ of Mandamus” (the “Petition”), ECF No. 1, be construed as a petition for writ of habeas corpus by a person in state custody pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 2254. It is further recommended that the Petition be transferred forthwith to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania because that is the district wherein Petitioner's state court conviction was obtained, and as such, it is the more convenient forum for litigation of the underlying allegations of the Petition.
II. REPORT
Petitioner Kevin Williams (“Petitioner”) is a state prisoner currently incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution at Forest (“SCI-Forest”) located in Marienville, Pennsylvania, within the territorial limits of the Western District of Pennsylvania. 28 U.S.C. § 118(c). Petitioner initiated the present matter in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York by filing the instant Petition there on or about July 6, 2021. ECF No. 1.
Marienville, Pennsylvania is located in Forest County.
While the Petition is difficult to follow, it appears that Petitioner seeks relief from a prior conviction in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. Id. at 8. Lancaster County is located within the territorial limits of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. 28 U.S.C. § 118(a). The relief sought by Petitioner is “immediate release from custody of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections[.]” Id. at 10.
On December 16, 2021, Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto of the Eastern District of New York construed the Petition as a petition for writ of habeas corpus. See Text Order of Dec. 16, 2021. Judge Matsumoto transferred this case to the Western District of Pennsylvania - presumably because SCI-Forest is located within the territorial boundaries of this district. Id.
Because the criminal conviction from which Petitioner seeks relief arose out of Lancaster County, the interests of justice weigh in favor of transferring this case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
A. Applicable Legal Principle and Discussion
1. Jurisdiction
The power of this Court to grant the writ is founded upon 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a) which provides that the “[w]rits of habeas corpus may be granted by the Supreme Court, any justice thereof, the district courts and any circuit judge within their respective jurisdictions.” (emphasis added).
28 U.S.C. § 2241(d) “provides that when a petitioner is serving a state criminal sentence in a State that contains more than one federal district, he may file a habeas petition not only ‘in the district court for the district wherein [he] is in custody,' but also ‘in the district court for the district within which the State court was held which convicted and sentenced him'; and ‘each of such district courts shall have concurrent jurisdiction to entertain the application.'” Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 443 (2004). See also Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 248-50 (9th Cir. 1989) (“The fact that a prisoner is outside the territorial limits of a federal district court does not deprive it of subject matter jurisdiction. A district court has subject matter jurisdiction over a habeas petition alleging a violation of federal law under federal question jurisdiction.”) (citations omitted); Irving v. Breazeale, 265 F.Supp. 116, 120 n.9 (S.D.Miss. 1967) (even though petitioner was incarcerated in the Northern District of Mississippi, the Southern District of Mississippi, in which the petitioner's state trial was conducted, had jurisdiction over his habeas petition filed there), aff'd, 400 F.2d 231 (5th Cir. 1968).
Petitioner's state court conviction occurred in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Petitioner is in custody at SCI-Forest - within the confines of this district. Consequently, both this district and the Eastern District of Pennsylvania have subject matter jurisdiction to entertain the Petition.
The issue of proper venue may be raised sua sponte by this Court. See Stjernholm v. Peterson, 83 F.3d 347, 349 (10th Cir. 1996).
Venue in habeas corpus related cases filed by state prisoners challenging their convictions is proper in either the federal district in which the state conviction was obtained or the federal district in which the petitioner was incarcerated at the time of filing the habeas petition. See Walker v. Lockhart, 620 F.2d 683, 684 n.1 (8th Cir. 1980) (although petitioner was confined in the Eastern District of Arkansas, he filed his habeas petition in the Western District wherein his state trial was held, the court held that “venue was properly laid in the Western District. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d).”).
Thus, venue is proper in both this district and the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
3. Transfer
In this case, both this Court or the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania have jurisdiction to hear this Petition, and venue is proper in either district.
However, this Court must exercise its discretion and determine whether transferring this case to the Eastern District would be “in furtherance of justice.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). In performing this venue analysis, courts may rely upon traditional venue considerations. See Braden v. 30th Judicial District, 410 U.S. 484, 493 (1973); Garcia v. Pugh, 948 F.Supp. 20, 23 (E.D. Pa. 1996). These considerations include: 1) the location where the underlying material events took place; 2) the location where records and witnesses pertinent to the claim are likely to be found; 3) the convenience of the forum for the petitioner and the respondent; and 4) the familiarity of the court with the applicable laws. Roman v. Ashcroft, 162 F.Supp.2d 755, 765 (N.D. Ohio 2001).
Application of these traditional venue considerations to the facts of this case reveals that this case should be transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. First, the underlying material event, which was Petitioner's criminal conviction, took place in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Second, all of the records and most of the participants are presumably located in Lancaster County. Third, in terms of convenience of the forum, if a hearing is held, it will be more convenient for most of the witnesses and the District Attorney of Lancaster County to litigate this Petition in the Eastern District. Presumably, Petitioner would be temporarily transferred to a Pennsylvania Department of Corrections facility, or other prison/jail facility near Lancaster County were a hearing to be required. Fourth, the factor of the familiarity of the court with the applicable laws is evenly balanced as both this Court and the Eastern District Court are familiar with the law of Pennsylvania.
Considering these four factors in the context of this action, it appears that they weigh heavily in favor of transferring this case to the Eastern District where the state conviction was obtained.
Moreover, it has been the general practice of the United States District Courts in Pennsylvania to transfer habeas corpus petitions to the federal district where the Common Pleas Court that conducted the underlying criminal trial of the petitioner is located. Ortiz v. Pennsylvania, No. 3:10cv028, 2010 WL 936448, at *1 (M.D. Pa. March 15, 2010) (action transferred from the “district (where petitioner is in custody) to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (where petitioner was convicted) in keeping with agreed practice of the United States District Courts for the Middle, Eastern, and Western Districts of Pennsylvania.”); Nightingale v. Vincent, No. Civ.A. 08-95J, 2008 WL 1943427, at *2 (W.D. Pa. May 2, 2008) (“Moreover, the federal district courts in the three separate districts in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania all follow the uniform practice of transferring habeas petitions filed by persons incarcerated within their districts to the district which encompasses the county in which the petitioner was convicted.”). See also Rouzer v. DiGuglielmo, Civ.A. No. 07-0268, 2007 WL 853750, at *1 (E.D. Pa. March 20, 2007).
III. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing considerations, it is respectfully recommended that this case be construed as a petition for writ of habeas corpus, and transferred forthwith to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
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. Objections are to be submitted to the Clerk of Court, United States District Court, 700 Grant Street, Room 3110, Pittsburgh, PA 15219. 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 (14) days thereafter in accordance with Local Civil Rule 72.D.2.