Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00407/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00407-0/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

WO RP

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Mark Hartvigsen, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Bruno Stolc, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 08-407-PHX-MHM (MEA)

ORDER

Petitioner Mark Hartvigsen, who is confined in the Red Rock Correctional Center

(RRCC) in Eloy, Arizona, 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). The

$5.00 filing fee has been paid. Petitioner has also filed a “Motion For Restraining Order”

(Doc. #3) and a “Motion To Apply Established Procedures” (Doc. #4). 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 alleges that a judgment of conviction was entered against

him on August 31, 1990, for first-degree “SAM,” in the Superior Court for the State of

Alaska in Kenai, Alaska, in matter #3KN-S89-174CR. Petitioner further alleges that he was

sentenced to a 15-year term of imprisonment.

Case 2:08-cv-00407-MHM--MEA Document 5 Filed 06/23/08 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 -

II. Habeas Relief

In Ground I, Petitioner asserts that he was denied his Fourteenth Amendment due

process rights when he was denied the right to a timely appeal. In Ground II, Petitioner

asserts that he is entitled to release from RRCC because it is a private prison facility outside

Alaska, where he was convicted and sentenced, and that his continued confinement therein

violates his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. 

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). 

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

Case 2:08-cv-00407-MHM--MEA Document 5 Filed 06/23/08 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 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, among other things, 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

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

parties or the subject matter”).

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

Case 2:08-cv-00407-MHM--MEA Document 5 Filed 06/23/08 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 -

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.

B. Motion to Apply Established Procedures

On March 27, 2008, Petitioner filed a “Motion To Apply Established Procedures”

(Doc. #4) (Motion to Apply). Petitioner appears to believe that the disposition of this matter

has been referred to a Magistrate Judge. The Local Rules of Civil Procedure for this District

provide for habeas petitions to be referred to a Magistrate Judge for preparation of a report

and recommendation, which is then adopted, modified or rejected by the District Judge.

Because this matter is being transferred to the District of Alaska, however, it will not be

referred to a Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, Petitioner’s Motion to Apply will be denied as

moot. 

IT IS ORDERED:

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

(2) Petitioner’s “Motion To Apply Established Procedures” (Doc. #4) is denied

as moot. 

(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).

Case 2:08-cv-00407-MHM--MEA Document 5 Filed 06/23/08 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 -

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

DATED this 19th day of June, 2008.

Case 2:08-cv-00407-MHM--MEA Document 5 Filed 06/23/08 Page 5 of 5