Pearson v. Hollingsworth ( 2016 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
_________________________________________
PRESTON PEARSON, :
:
Petitioner, : Civ. No. 16-1860 (RBK)
:
v. :
:
WARDEN J. HOLLINGSWORTH, : OPINION
:
Respondent. :
_________________________________________ :
ROBERT B. KUGLER, U.S.D.J.
I. INTRODUCTION
Petitioner, Preston Pearson, is currently an inmate incarcerated at F.C.I. Fort Dix in Fort
Dix, New Jersey. He is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241. For the following reasons, this Court will transfer this habeas petition to the
United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
II. BACKGROUND
This Court received petitioner’s habeas petition in April, 2016. Petitioner challenges his
2009 judgment and conviction from the District of Columbia Superior Court for second degree
murder. Petitioner received a sentence of 120 months. Petitioner raises several claims in this
habeas petition related to that 2009 District of Columbia Superior Court judgment and
conviction; specifically: (1) denial of counsel choice; (2) denial of an impartial jury; (3)
prosecutorial misconduct; (4) improper suppression of exculpatory evidence; and (5) ineffective
assistance of trial and appellate counsel.
III. STANDARD FOR SUA SPONTE REVIEW OF HABEAS PETITION
With respect to screening the instant petition, 28 U.S.C. § 2243 provides in relevant part:
A court, justice or judge entertaining an application for a writ of
habeas corpus shall forthwith award the writ or issue an order
directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be
granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or
person detained is not entitled thereto.
As petitioner is proceeding pro se, his petition is held to less stringent standards than those
pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Rainey v. Varner, 603 F.3d 189, 198 (3d Cir.2010) (“It is the
policy of the courts to give a liberal construction to pro se habeas petitions.”) (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted); United States v. Otero, 502 F.3d 331, 334 (3d Cir.2007) ( “we
construe pro se pleadings liberally.”) (citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972)).
Nevertheless, “a district court is authorized to dismiss a [habeas] petition summarily when it
plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is
not entitled to relief in the district court[.]” Lonchar v. Thomas, 517 U.S. 314, 320 (1996).
IV. DISCUSSION
Because petitioner was convicted and sentenced in the District of Columbia Superior
Court, he is considered a state prisoner. See Morgan v. LaManna, 150 F. App’x 145, 147 (3d Cir.
2005) (citing Madley v. United States Parole Comm’n, 278 F.3d 1306, 1309 (D.C. Cir. 2002)).
Accordingly, as petitioner is clearly challenging the 2009 District of Columbia Superior Court
judgment and conviction, he should bring this habeas action under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, not 28
U.S.C. § 2241. See id. (finding that a petitioner challenge to his sentence in the District of
Columbia Superior Court make him a state prisoner whose only recourse for federal habeas relief
is under § 2254); see also Ganeous v. Zickefoose, No. 14-0443, 2014 WL 2940583, at *3 (M.D.
Pa. June 30, 2014) (collecting cases which hold that where petitioner is challenging a District of
Columbia Superior Court conviction and sentence that habeas petition is correctly filed under §
2254, not § 2241).
2
Section 2241 provides in relevant part:
Where an application for a writ of habeas corpus is made by a
person in custody under the judgment and sentence of a State court
of a State which contains two or more Federal judicial districts, the
application may be filed in the district court for the district wherein
such person is in custody or 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.
28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). Nevertheless“[t]he district court for the district wherein such an application
is filed in the exercise of its discretion and in furtherance of justice may transfer the application
to the other district court for hearing and determination.” Id. Accordingly, Petitioner's original
petition was properly filed in this district as he is confined at FCI Fort Dix, New Jersey,
however, this Court retains the ability to transfer venue in the furtherance of justice.
Courts may transfer a habeas corpus action “for the convenience of parties and witnesses
to any other district where it might have been brought.” Verissimo v. I.N.S., 204 F. Supp. 2d 818,
820 (D.N.J. 2002) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a); Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court, 410 U.S.
484, 493–94 (1973)). In making this determination, “a court may analyze factors such as where
the material events occurred, where the records and witnesses are located, and the convenience
of forum for both parties. The district in which sentencing and conviction occurred is favored
because of the availability of evidence and witnesses.” Id. (citing Braden, 410 U.S. at 493–94;
Henderson v. I.N.S., 157 F.3d 106, 128 n.25 (2d Cir. 1998)).
A transfer of venue in this case would be in the interests of justice as the original
judgment and conviction did not occur in New Jersey. Indeed, the material events underlying this
habeas petition occurred within the United States District for the District of Columbia as
petitioner’s conviction was obtained in the District of Columbia Superior Court. Additionally,
records and witnesses pertaining to that conviction are also presumably located in the District of
3
Columbia. While this Court is mindful of the deference owed to petitioner’s choice of forum, the
deference is outweighed by the factors pointing towards the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia as being the better forum. See 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a); In re Nwanze, 242 F.3d
521, 526 n.2 (3d Cir. 2001) (“[O]rdinarily a transfer of a [habeas] proceeding relating to the
validity of the petitioner’s conviction from the district of confinement to the district of
sentencings would be in the furtherance of the convenience of the parties and witnesses).”);
Ganeous, 2014 WL 2940583, at *4-5 (transferring habeas petition challenging petitioner’s
District of Columbia judgment and conviction to United States District Court for the District of
Columbia because of the convenience to the parties and witnesses as well as in the interests of
justice). Therefore, this action will be transferred to the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia. This Court expresses no opinion on the merits of petitioner’s habeas
petition.
V. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Clerk shall be ordered to transfer this action to the United
States District Court for the District of Columbia. An appropriate Order will be entered.
DATED: May 6, 2016 s/Robert B. Kugler
ROBERT B. KUGLER
United States District Judge
4