UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No.: 20-22868-CV-BLOOM

JOHN DAVID WILSON, JR.,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, et al.,

Respondent.

_________________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Petitioner, John David Wilson, Jr.’s Petition under 

28 U.S.C [section] 2254 for Writ of Habeas Custody by a Person in State Custody, ECF No. [1]. 

Petitioner challenges the constitutionality of his no contest plea to domestic violence and 

conviction for violation of a domestic injunction in Case No. 00-CM-002394-A, Thirteenth 

Judicial Circuit of Florida, Hillsborough County. See id. at 1–2. Hillsborough County is located 

in the Middle District of Florida. See 28 U.S.C. § 89(b). 

Review of the Petition and its supporting Memorandum of Law, ECF No. [3], suggest that 

most, if not all, of the potential witnesses and evidence are located in the Middle District of Florida. 

See generally ECF Nos. [1, 3]. Moreover, a petition relating to the instant proceeding was 

previously filed in the Middle District of Florida. See ECF No. [1] 3. Therefore, the appropriate 

venue under 28 U.S.C. section 2241(d) is the Middle District of Florida, i.e., “the district court for 

the district within which the State court was held which convicted and sentenced [petitioner].” See

28 U.S.C. § 2241(d); see also Mitchell v. Henderson, 432 F.2d 435, 436 (5th Cir. 1970) (“Section 

2241(d) militates in favor of filing the applicant’s petition in . . . the division where the witnesses 

Case 1:20-cv-22868-BB Document 7 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/30/2020 Page 1 of 2
Case No.: 20-22868-CV-BLOOM

2

are located, rather than . . . the division in which the applicant is confined.”); Byrd v. Martin, 754 

F.2d 963, 965 (11th Cir. 1985) (per curiam) (“The most convenient forum will often be the district 

in the state whose conviction is being attacked, and a transfer of the case to that district is 

permissible . . . .” (citations omitted)).1

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:

1. The case shall be TRANSFERRED to the Middle District of Florida.

2. The Clerk of Court shall CLOSE the case. 

3. Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel, ECF No. [5], is DENIED as MOOT. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on July 30, 2020.

_________________________________

BETH BLOOM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

cc: John David Wilson, Jr.

T21940 

Martin Correctional Institution 

Inmate Mail/Parcels 

1150 SW Allapattah Road 

Indiantown, FL 34956 

PRO SE

Noticing 2254 SAG Miami-Dade/Monroe 

Email: CrimAppMIA@MyFloridaLegal.com

1

“[W]hile a district court may dismiss a suit sua sponte for lack of venue, it [generally] may not do so 

without first giving the parties an opportunity to present their views on the issue.” Algodonera De Las 

Cabezas, S.A. v. Am. Suisse Capital, Inc., 432 F.3d 1343, 1345 (11th Cir. 2005); Westley v. Alberto, 703 F. 

App’x 727, 730 (11th Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (court should give parties notice and opportunity to respond 

before transferring a case sua sponte (citing Tazoe v. Airbus S.A.S., 631 F.3d 1321, 1336 (11th Cir. 2011))). 

However, where, as here, it is “obvious from the face of the petition that the interests of justice would be 

better served by having an application for a writ of habeas corpus heard in the district of conviction,” these 

requirements may be inapplicable. See Ford v. Bradt, 71 F. Supp. 3d 364, 367 (W.D.N.Y. 2014). 

Case 1:20-cv-22868-BB Document 7 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/30/2020 Page 2 of 2