Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00397/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00397-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 1

Petitioner was confined in the Red Rock Correctional Center (RRCC) in Eloy, Arizona,

when he filed his Petition.

WO RP

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Richard P. Hochmuth, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Bruno Stolc, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 08-397-PHX-MHM (MHB)

ORDER

Petitioner Richard P. Hochmuth, who is confined in the Palmer Correctional Center

in Palmer, Alaska, has filed a pro se “Petition For Writ Of Habeas Corpus By A Person In

State Custody Pursuant To 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Non-Death Penalty)” (Doc. #1).1

 The $5.00

filing fee has been paid. Petitioner has also filed a “Motion For Restraining Order” (Doc. #3)

and an untitled pleading (Doc. #4), which the Court will construe as a Motion to Expedite

Ruling on “Motion For Restraining Order.” The Court will transfer this action to the District

of Alaska pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) and deny Petitioner’s Motions. 

I. Petition

Named as Respondent in the Petition is Bruno Stolc, Warden of RRCC.

In his Petition, Petitioner challenges his judgment of conviction entered against him

Case 2:08-cv-00397-MHM--MHB Document 8 Filed 06/24/08 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

on July 1, 1996, for second-degree murder, in the Superior Court for the State of Alaska in

Kodiac, Alaska, in matter #3KO-95-50CR. Petitioner further alleges that he was sentenced

to a 30-year term of imprisonment, with 10 years suspended.

II. Habeas Relief

Petitioner asserts that his confinement in RRCC violated his Fourteenth Amendment

due process rights because RRCC is a private prison facility outside Alaska, where he was

convicted and sentenced. Petitioner further asserts that the deliberately wrongful conduct of

the State of Alaska and the Alaska Department of Corrections in removing him against his

will to Arizona and confining him in RRCC requires his “immediate and unconditional

release from imprisonment with full prejudice against the State of Alaska from reestablishing

custody.” 

Title 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) provides that a court “shall entertain” a habeas application

of a person “in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court . . . .” The Court first

assesses whether Petitioner is “in custody pursuant to a State court judgment.” “The majority

view of the circuits that have analyzed [the issue have treated] this clause as directing a status

inquiry into the source of the petitioner’s custody, and not an inquiry into the target of the

petitioner’s challenge.” White v. Lambert, 370 F.3d 1002, 1007-1008 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing

Walker v. O’Brien, 216 F.3d 626, 633 (7th Cir. 2000)). Although Petitioner is challenging

the execution of his sentence, he is in custody pursuant to an Alaska state court judgment;

therefore, his exclusive avenue for habeas relief is § 2254. White, 370 F.3d at 1009-1010.

III. Transfer of Venue

A district court may transfer “any civil action to any other district or division where

it might have been brought” for the convenience of the parties and witnesses or in the interest

of justice. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The decision to transfer under § 1404(a) lies within the

discretion of the district court and should be determined based upon notions of convenience

and fairness on a case-by-case basis. Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29

(1988). 

Case 2:08-cv-00397-MHM--MHB Document 8 Filed 06/24/08 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

A. This Action Could Have Been Brought in the District of Alaska 

Jurisdiction to hear a habeas corpus petition lies in any district court having

jurisdiction over the petitioner’s custodian. See Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of

Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484, 495 (1973) (construing 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a)). A district court can

issue a habeas writ “within its jurisdiction” so long as the custodian can be reached by

service of process. Id. In amending the habeas corpus statutes, Congress has indicated that

a habeas case should be “resolved in the court which originally imposed the confinement or

in the court located nearest the site of the underlying controversy.” Id. at 497 (citing H. R.

Rep. No. 1894, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. (1966); S. Rep. No. 1502, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. (1966)

U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News 1966, p. 2968; and United States v. Hayman, 342 U.S. 205

(1952)). 

In this case, Petitioner challenges the decision to transfer him to Arizona to serve his

sentence in a private prison operated by a for-profit company. That decision was made by

the Alaska Department of Corrections. Therefore, this § 2254 action could have originally

been brought in the District of Alaska. Cf. White, 370 F.3d at 1010 (the decision regarding

the execution of sentence originated in the state of conviction by that state’s department of

corrections). 

B. Convenience of the Parties and Witnesses and Interests of Justice 

Both the convenience of the parties and witnesses and the interests of justice will best

be served by transferring this case to the District of Alaska. It is in Alaska where the

decision to transfer Petitioner to Arizona was made and where relevant records and witnesses

are likely to be found. See Braden, 410 U.S. at 493-94. Moreover, before any federal court

could reach the merits of this case, it would first have to resolve the threshold issue of

whether Petitioner has exhausted his state court remedies; a federal court in the District of

Alaska will be more familiar with that State’s laws and procedures. See id. at 499. Further,

the State of Arizona has no interest in the subject matter of this case, whereas the State of

Alaska has a strong interest in the subject matter. See Lou v. Belzberg, 834 F.2d 730, 739

(9th Cir. 1987) (a litigant’s choice of forum is entitled to only minimal consideration “if the

Case 2:08-cv-00397-MHM--MHB Document 8 Filed 06/24/08 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 -

operative facts have not occurred within the forum and the forum has no interest in the

parties or the subject matter”). Moreover, Petitioner has been transferred back to Alaska and

is currently confined in the Palmer Correctional Facility in Palmer, Alaska.

IV. Motions

A. Motion for Restraining Order

On March 6, 2008, Petitioner filed a “Motion For Restraining Order” (Doc. #3), in

which he seeks to enjoin Respondent Stolc or any agent or employee of Respondent, or the

Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), or RRCC, from surrendering custody of

Petitioner to any third party, particularly officials or agencies of the states of Arizona or

Alaska. A temporary restraining order without notice may be granted only if the applicant

certifies to the court in writing the efforts, if any, that he made to give notice and the reasons

that notice should not be required. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). Further, “[n]o preliminary

injunction shall be issued without notice to the adverse party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(1). 

Respondent has not been served with the Petition or a copy of the Motion, nor has

Petitioner certified to the Court in writing the efforts he has made to give notice to

Respondent or reasons why notice should not be required. On these facts, Petitioner’s

Motion will be denied.

In so doing, the Court reiterates that Petitioner is no longer confined in RRCC, but has

been transferred back to Alaska.

B. Motion to Expedite Ruling

On March 14, 2008, Petitioner filed an untitled pleading (Doc. #4), which the Court

is construing as a Motion to Expedite Ruling on “Motion For Restraining Order.” Because

Petitioner was transferred to Alaska before the Court could rule on his “Motion For

Restraining Order,” the Court will deny his Motion to Expedite Ruling as moot.

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) Petitioner’s “Motion For Restraining Order” (Doc. #3) is denied.

(2) Petitioner’s untitled pleading (Doc. #4), which the Court construes as a Motion

to Expedite Ruling on “Motion For Restraining Order,” is denied as moot. 

Case 2:08-cv-00397-MHM--MHB Document 8 Filed 06/24/08 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 5 -

(3) The Petition (Doc. #1) and this action are transferred to the United States

District Court for the District of Alaska pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).

(4) The Clerk of the Court must transfer this action forthwith.

DATED this 19th day of June, 2008.

Case 2:08-cv-00397-MHM--MHB Document 8 Filed 06/24/08 Page 5 of 5