Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

MARC V. MILLER,

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00112-MP-AK

FLORIDA PAROLE COMMISSION,

Respondent.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 1, a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in which Petitioner challenges the revocation of his parole from Broward

County convictions of second degree murder and aggravated battery. Although Petitioner filed

his claims pursuant to § 2241, because he is “in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State

court,” he is subject to the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2254, notwithstanding that he challenges

a decision of the Florida Parole Commission. Thomas v. Crosby, 371 F.3d 782, 787 (11th Cir.

2004). Thus, the venue provisions of § 2241(d), which govern habeas petitions filed by

prisoners in custody pursuant to a judgment of a State court, also apply to this case. See, e.g.,

Reyes v. Singer, ___ F. Supp. ___, 2010 WL 680355, *3-*4 (N.D. Fla. 2010). Pursuant to

§ 2241(d):

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

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
Page 2 of 2

Case No: 1:10-cv-00112-MP-AK

application to the other district court for hearing and determination.

Petitioner is presently confined at Union Correctional Institution, within the Middle

District of Florida. He was convicted and sentenced in Broward County, within the Southern

District of Florida. Thus, pursuant to § 2241(d), venue is not proper in the Northern District of

Florida. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a district court may “[f]or the convenience of the

parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice . . . transfer any civil action to any other district or

division where it might have been brought.” The district of conviction would appear to be the

most appropriate forum for transfer, since that is where any necessary witnesses are likely

located. See Parker v. Singletary, 974 F.2d 1562, 1582 n.118 (11th Cir. 1992) (courts should

give careful consideration to convenience of witnesses in transferring habeas corpus petitions

under § 2241(d)); Mitchell v. Henderson, 432 F.2d 435, 436 (5th Cir. 1970) (division of

conviction, where witnesses were located, was appropriate venue over division of confinement in

challenge to conviction). 

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

This case is hereby TRANSFERRED to the Southern District of Florida for all further

proceedings.

DONE AND ORDERED this 8th day of July, 2010

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge