IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 


FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 


CARMELO RIVERA, 

Petitioner 

v. 

SUPERINTENDENT OF SCI 

HUNTINGDON, et a/., 

Respondents 

I 

I 

I 

Civil No. 3:15-cv-1636 I 

(Judge Mariani) 	 I 

I 

MEMORANDUM I

! 

Petitioner, Carmelo Rivera, an inmate presently con'fined at the State Correctional I 

t Institution at Huntingdon, Pennsylvania, filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus t 

I pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1). Rivera challenges a 2012 conviction imposed by ~ 

the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas. (Doc. 1). For the reasons outlined below, I 

I the petition will be transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of 	 j 

f 

I Pennsylvania. I 

Discussion I 

t 

"The federal habeas corpus statute straightforwardly provides that the proper t 

! 

I' 

respondent to a habeas petition is 'the person who has custody over [the petitioner].' 28 

U.S.C. § 2242; see also § 2243... .'[T]hese provisions contemplate a proceeding against 

some person who has the immediate custody of the party detained, with the power to 	 

t 

I 

f 

produce the body of such party before the court or judge, that he may be liberated if no i sufficient reason is shown to the contrary.'" Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 434-35 	 i 

Case 3:15-cv-01636-RDM-CA Document 4 Filed 08/26/15 Page 1 of 3
(2004) (emphasis in original) (citations omitted); Cox v. Holt, 2009 WL 4015567, *1-2 (M.D. 


Pa. 2009) (Caldwell, J.). There is no question that this Court has jurisdiction over Rivera's 

petition. However, notwithstanding the issue of jurisdiction, a court may transfer any civil 

action for the convenience of the parties or witnesses, or in the interest of justice, to any 

district where the action might have been brought. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a); See also Braden v. 

30th Judicial Circuit of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484 (1973); Ross v. Spaulding, 2014 WL 

3339570, *5 (M.D. Pa. 2014) (Kosik, J.). Because habeas proceedings are generally 

considered civil in nature, see Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987), the term "civil 

action" includes habeas petitions. Parrott v. Government of Virgin Islands, 230 F.3d 615, 

620 (3d Cir. 2000). Title 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (d) provides: 

(d) Where an application for awrit 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. The 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. 

28 U.S.C. § 2241 (d). 

"It has been the general practice of the federal district courts in Pennsylvania to 

transfer habeas corpus petitions to the federal district court where the Court of Common 

Pleas is located that conducted the underlying criminal trial of the petitioner." Aponte v. 

2 


Case 3:15-cv-01636-RDM-CA Document 4 Filed 08/26/15 Page 2 of 3
I 

!

Coleman, 2011 WL 4368376, *2 (W.D. Pa. 2011), adopted by, 2011 WL 4368682 (W.D. Pa. 

2011). In the instant case, Rivera is attacking aconviction for third degree murder imposed I 

I 

by the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. Since the trial court, I 

as well as any records, witnesses and counsel, are located within the United States District 

Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, it would be prudent to transfer this action to 

the Eastern District. See Mohammed v. Gavin, 2013 WL 1969373, (M.D. Pa. 2013) 

(Blewitt, M.J.), adopted by, 2013 WL 1969366 (M.D. Pa. 2013) (Brann, J.) (transferring the 

28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition to the United States District Court for the Eastern District t 

of Pennsylvania noting that all records of Petitioner's state court conviction, transcripts of I 

proceedings, witnesses, and counsel were located within that district). I 

An appropriate Order follows. 

I 

I 

I 

Dated: August ~, 2015 


3 


Case 3:15-cv-01636-RDM-CA Document 4 Filed 08/26/15 Page 3 of 3