IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JOSE ANTONIO PEROZA-BENITEZ,:

:

Petitioner :

: CIVIL NO. 4:10-CV-1515

:

v. : (Judge McClure)

:

RAYMOND M. LAWLER, et al., :

:

Respondents :

MEMORANDUM and ORDER

 July 26, 2010

I. INTRODUCION

Petitioner Jose Antonio Peroza-Benitez (“Petitioner”), an inmate presently

confined at the Huntingdon State Correctional Institution (“SCI Huntingdon”) in

Huntingdon, Pennsylvania, initiated the above action pro se by filing a petition for

writ of habeas corpus under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Rec. Doc. No. 1.) 

He has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (See Rec. Doc. No. 2.) Named

as Respondents are Raymond M. Lawler, Superintendent of SCI Huntingdon, and the

Attorney General of Pennsylvania. The request for in forma pauperis status will be

granted for the sole purpose of filing this petition, and for the reasons set forth below,

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

Case 4:10-cv-01515-JFM-SF Document 3 Filed 07/26/10 Page 1 of 3
2

District of Pennsylvania.

II. BACKGROUND

Petitioner states that he was convicted on December 11, 2006 in the Court of

Common Pleas of Berks County (“trial court”) of one (1) count of delivery of a

controlled substance; three (3) counts of possession with intent to deliver a controlled

substance; and six (6) counts of resisting arrest. (See Rec. Doc. No. 1 at 1.) On

December 11, 2006, the trial court sentenced him to a term of imprisonment of seven

(7) to fourteen (14) years. (See id.) In the instant petition, Petitioner raises two (2)

claims regarding an alleged abuse of discretion by the trial court, and ineffective

assistance of counsel claims as to plea and sentencing counsel, appellate counsel, and

PCRA counsel. (See id. at 7-18.)

III. DISCUSSION

In civil cases, venue may be changed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1404(a), which 

provides, “For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a

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

might have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Venue for a habeas corpus petition

may be transferred under § 1404(a) to a forum where the material events occurred and

where the records and witnesses are located. Smart v. Goord, 21 F. Supp. 2d 309, 313

(S.D.N.Y. 1998); see also Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S.

Case 4:10-cv-01515-JFM-SF Document 3 Filed 07/26/10 Page 2 of 3
3

484 (1973).

In the instant case, it is clear that the issues Petitioner raises in his petition

originated in Berks County, which is located within the Eastern District of

Pennsylvania. Further, even though Petitioner currently is incarcerated in the Middle

District of Pennsylvania, the records and witnesses involved in his conviction and

sentence are located in the Eastern District. Based on these considerations, the Court

finds that a change of venue is warranted.

When venue is improper, as in this matter, a court may transfer the matter to the

district court “in which it could have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). 

Accordingly, we will direct that the instant action be transferred to the United States

District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Consequently,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Rec. Doc. No. 2) 

is GRANTED for the sole purpose of filing the petition.

2. The Clerk of Court is directed to TRANSFER this matter to the United 

States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

3. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case in this Court.

 s/ James F. McClure, Jr. 

JAMES F. McCLURE, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 4:10-cv-01515-JFM-SF Document 3 Filed 07/26/10 Page 3 of 3