Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01279/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01279-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRED GRAVES,,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-1279 LKK GGH P

vs.

MIKE KNOWLES, et al.,

Respondents. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On May 9, 2005, petitioner filed a motion for a temporary

restraining order. Petitioner requests that prison officials be ordered not to transfer him for

ninety days. 

Petitioner believes that a transfer will harm his ability to proceed with his habeas

corpus actions because he might be transferred to a place where the court would no longer have

subject matter jurisdiction, and that petitioner needs to be close to those inmates who have

assisted him in his litigations.

Although there may be a subject matter jurisdiction issue because petitioner would

not be considered “in custody” for the prison disciplinary issues he seeks litigated in this habeas

corpus proceeding, petitioner’s transfer from his present place of incarceration to another

Case 2:04-cv-01279-LKK -GGH Document 22 Filed 05/23/05 Page 1 of 2
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

2

institution will not affect the subject matter jurisdiction of this court. Assuming that petitioner’s

new custodian is located outside this district, this court would have jurisdiction over petitioner’s

case as long as he was “convicted” in this district. See 28 U.S.C. 2241(d). With respect to

petitioner’s desire not to be separated from those assisting him herein, the court finds that

petitioner would not suffer irreparable harm on account of a transfer. Moreover, plaintiff has no

right to be incarcerated only at that institution where it may be most advantageous to his interests

in this litigation. Finally, the court will be able to adjudicate this nearly completely briefed case

without problems occasioned by plaintiff’s transfer.

ACCORDINGLY, petitioner’s ex parte emergency request to stop his transfer

should be denied. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised

that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: 5/23/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:kj

gra1279.po

Case 2:04-cv-01279-LKK -GGH Document 22 Filed 05/23/05 Page 2 of 2