Maccord v. United States
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
Analysis
The court reviewed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by a federal prisoner on supervised release in the Southern District of California, who argued he was improperly deprived of First Step Act time credits. The court ordered the case transferred to the Southern District of California as the district of confinement.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Transfer of the case to the Southern District of California“Accordingly, in the interests of justice, this case is TRANSFERRED to the Southern District of California.” | agree with court The court correctly applied 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to transfer the case to the district of confinement, which is the standard forum for habeas corpus petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The petitioner is on supervised release in the Southern District of California, making it the appropriate venue. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound and relies on well-established circuit precedent regarding the proper venue for habeas corpus petitions. It correctly identifies the petitioner's current location (supervised release in S.D. Cal.) as the district of confinement and applies the 'interests of justice' standard under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to transfer the case. There are no significant gaps in the reasoning for a transfer order.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
inconsistent with cited authorityOpinion
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 DONALD MACCORD, Case No. 22-cv-04186-SVK 8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF TRANSFER v. 9 10 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. 11 12 Petitioner is on supervised release pursuant to a federal sentence. He has filed a petition 13 for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in which he argues that he has been improperly 14 deprived of time credits under the First Step Act. Petitioner was convicted and sentenced in the 15 Northern District of California, he served approximately 20 months in a federal penitentiary in 16 Montgomery, Alabama, and now he is on supervised release in the Southern District of California. 17 Federal courts generally take the position that the district of confinement "is normally the 18 forum most convenient to the parties," and therefore exercise discretion in transferring petitions to 19 the district of confinement "in the interests of justice" pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). McCoy v. 20 United States Bd. of Parole, 537 F.2d 962, 966 (8th Cir. 1976); see also Dunne v. Henman, 875 21 F.2d 244, 249-50 (9th Cir. 1989) (suggesting that even where district court has personal 22 jurisdiction over custodian, preferred forum is district where petitioner is confined); Chatman-Bey 23 v. Thornburgh, 864 F.2d 804, 814 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (“venue considerations may, and frequently 24 will, argue in favor of adjudication of the habeas claim in the jurisdiction where the habeas 25 petitioner is confined”). 26 Because Petitioner is on supervised release in the Southern District of California, that is his 27 district of confinement. Accordingly, in the interests of justice, this case is TRANSFERRED to 1 The Clerk shall terminate all pending motions and transfer the entire file to the Southern District 2 || of California.! 3 SO ORDERED. 4 || Dated: July 22, 2022 5 6 Susie vel SUSAN VAN KEULEN 7 United States Magistrate Judge 8 9 10 11 12 © 15 16 = 17 Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ' Petitioner initially sent the petition to the Central District of California in Los Angeles, and it 2g || appears that the Office of the Clerk mailed it to the Southern District of California. (ECF No. 3- 1.) It was then inadvertently mailed to this court. (d.)