Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation

of the United States Magistrate Judge

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

OLEN W. BRAMLETT, 694397, §

Petitioner, §

§

v. § 3:05-CV-2394-K

§ ECF

DOUGLAS DRETKE, DIRECTOR, §

TEXAS DEPT. OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, §

CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION §

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This case has been referred to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b) and a standing order of reference from the district court. The Findings, Conclusions

and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge follow:

Background: Petitioner is a state prisoner currently incarcerated in the Texas

Department of Criminal Justice - Correctional Institutional Division (TDCJ-CID). Defendant

Douglas Dretke is Director of TDCJ-CID. 

Petitioner filed this writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He is currently

incarcerated in Brazoria County, Texas. Petitioner challenges his state court conviction for

murder in the Criminal District Court Number 1, Tarrant County, Texas. 

Discussion: Jurisdiction in a habeas corpus action is determined by 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). 

That statue provides:

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 or 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 concurrent jurisdiction to entertain the application. The district court for the district

 

 Case 4:06-cv-00015-A Document 11 Filed 12/21/05 Page 1 of 4 PageID 46
Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation

of the United States Magistrate Judge Page -2-

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); see also In re Green, 39 F.3d 582, 583-84 (5th Cir. 1994). Consequently,

state prisoners may file a federal habeas corpus petition either in the district where they are

confined or where they are convicted.

In this case, Petitioner was convicted in Tarrant County, Texas, which is in the Northern

District of Texas, Fort Worth Division. See 28 U.S.C. § 124. In a habeas corpus proceeding, if

there is any possibility that an evidentiary hearing may be necessary, the action should be

transferred to the district or division in which Petitioner was convicted and sentenced. Itson v.

Johnson, No. 3:01-CV-0143-L, 2001 WL 210451 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 28, 2001) (citing Laue v.

Nelson, 279 F. Supp. 265, 266 (N.D. Cal. 1968)). Petitioner was convicted and sentenced in the

Fort Worth Division. Therefore, the Court hereby recommends that Petitioner’s habeas corpus

petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 be transferred to the Fort Worth Division of the

United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. 

 

 Case 4:06-cv-00015-A Document 11 Filed 12/21/05 Page 2 of 4 PageID 47
Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation

of the United States Magistrate Judge Page -3-

RECOMMENDATION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court recommends that the District Court transfer this

habeas corpus petition to the Fort Worth Division of the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Texas. 

Signed December 21, 2005.

_____________________________________

PAUL D. STICKNEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

 Case 4:06-cv-00015-A Document 11 Filed 12/21/05 Page 3 of 4 PageID 48
Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation

of the United States Magistrate Judge Page -4-

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT

The United States District Clerk shall serve a copy of these findings and

recommendations on Petitioner. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), any party who desires to

object to these findings and recommendations must file and serve written objections within ten

(10) days after being served with a copy. A party filing objections must specifically identify

those findings and recommendations to which objections are being made. The District Court

need not consider frivolous, conclusory or general objections. The failure to file such written

objections to these proposed findings and recommendations shall bar that party from a de novo

determination by the district court. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Additionally,

the failure to file written objections to proposed findings and recommendations within ten (10)

days after being served with a copy shall bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual

findings and legal conclusions of the Magistrate Judge that are accepted by the District Court,

except upon grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415,

1417 (5th Cir. 1996)(en banc).

 

 

 

 Case 4:06-cv-00015-A Document 11 Filed 12/21/05 Page 4 of 4 PageID 49