IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

ROBERT G. ROBERSON, #1008416, ) 

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) 3:05-CV-0963-P

)

DOUGLAS DRETKE, Director, Director, )

Texas Department of Criminal Justice, )

Institutional Division, )

Respondent. )

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and an order of the Court in

implementation thereof, this cause has been referred to the United States Magistrate Judge. The

findings, conclusions and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, as evidenced by his signature

thereto, are as follows:

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS:

Petitioner, a state prisoner, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254, challenging a conviction from Tarrant County, Texas. He has neither paid the

filing fee nor submitted a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

28 U.S.C. § 2241(d), which governs federal habeas corpus jurisdiction, provides in

pertinent part as follows:

Where an application for a writ 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

 

 Case 4:05-cv-00417-Y Document 3 Filed 06/02/05 Page 1 of 4 PageID 27
2

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); accord Story v. Collins, 920 F.2d 1247, 1250-51 (5th Cir. 1991).

Petitioner was convicted and sentenced in Tarrant County, which is located in the Fort

Worth Division of the Northern District of Texas. 28 U.S.C. § 124(a)(2). He is currently

incarcerated at the Clements Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice – Correctional

Institutions Division in Amarillo Texas.

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

court may transfer a civil action to any district or division where it might have been brought. See

28 U.S.C. § 1404. If there is any possibility that an evidentiary hearing may be necessary, a

district court should transfer a petition to the district or division in which the petitioner was

convicted and sentenced. See Laue v. Nelson, 279 F. Supp. 265, 266 (N.D. Cal. 1968) (noting

that the legislative history of § 2241(d) counsels this result). Because the conviction that

Petitioner attacks in this case arose in the Fort Worth Division of the Northern District of Texas,

the court finds that this case should be transferred to that division for further proceedings.

 

 Case 4:05-cv-00417-Y Document 3 Filed 06/02/05 Page 2 of 4 PageID 28
3

RECOMMENDATION: 

For the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that the District court transfer this habeas

corpus action to the Fort Worth Division of the Northern District of Texas for further 

proceedings. 

A copy of this recommendation will be mailed to Petitioner.

Signed, June 2, 2005.

___________________________________

PAUL D. STICKNEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

 Case 4:05-cv-00417-Y Document 3 Filed 06/02/05 Page 3 of 4 PageID 29
4

NOTICE

In the event that you wish to object to this recommendation, you are hereby notified that

you must file your written objections within ten days after being served with a copy of this

recommendation.

 

 Case 4:05-cv-00417-Y Document 3 Filed 06/02/05 Page 4 of 4 PageID 30