FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT January 24, 2008 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 07- 12192 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 7 - 2 1 0 2 1 - CV - PCH M I C H A E L D . W R I G H T , S R ., 78252- 004 P e titio n e r - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s S T A T E O F I N D I A N A , L oren G ra ye r F D C M I A M I , W a r d e n , R e s p o n d e n ts - A p p e lle e s .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe r n D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( Jan u ar y 24, 2008) B efo re B IR C H , D U B IN A an d K R A V IT C H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

M i chae l W ri gh t , a f

eder al pri soner procee di ng pro se, appeal s the di stri ct c o u r t ’ s d i s mi s s a l f

o rl a c k o f

j u r i s d i c t i o n o f

h i s p e t i t i o n f

o rh a b e a s r e l i e f

, 2 8 U . S. C. § 2241. A f

t e ra thor ough r e vi e w of the r e c or d, w e va c a t e a nd r e m a nd. W hi l e c on fi ned i n a fe dera l pri son i n F l ori da aw ai t i ng new cr i m i nal pr oc e e di ngs , W r i ghtf

i l e d the i ns t a nt§ 2241 pe t i t i on i n the di s tr i c tc our tf orthe S ou thern D i stri ctof F l ori da se eki ng re vi ew of hi s 199 3 Ind i ana burgl ary a nd theft conv i ct i on s f

or w hi ch he w as t o serve 22 ye ar s’ i m pri sonm entand 1 3 yea rs prob at i on . T he di stri ctcourtdi sm i ss ed the pet i t i on w i tho utprej ud i ce , fi nd i ng that 28 U . S . C . § 2254, a nd not§ 2241, w a s the pr ope rs e c t i on unde rw hi c h W r i ght s houl d br i ng hi s pe t i t i on, a nd tha ti tl a c ke d j ur i s di c t i on t o de c i de the pe t i t i on be c a us e the pr ope rj ur i s di c t i on w a s f e de r a l di s tr i c tc our ti n I ndi a na . W r i ghtnow a p p e a ls . I n r e v i e wi n g th e d i s tr i c tc o u r t ’ s d e n i a l o f a h a b e a s c o rp u s p e t i t i o n , we re vi ew qu es t i on s of l aw de no vo and t he court ’ s f i nd i ng s of f

ac tfor c l ea r e rr or. C ol om a v. H ol der, 44 5 F . 3d 12 82 , 12 84 (11t h C i r. 20 06 ). T hi s c ou rthas not ed that the w r i tof

ha be a s c orpus i s a s i ngl e pos t - c onvi c t i on r e m e dy tha ti s gove r ne d by bo th § § 2 24 1 and 22 54 , the form erse ct i on defi ni ng the ou t erpara m et er s of f eder al c our t s ’ a uthor i ty t o de c i de pe t i t i ons f orha be a s c orpus , a nd the l a t t e rl i m i t i ng the c our t s ’ a uthor i ty w i th r e s pe c tt o a s ubc l a s s of pe t i t i one r s – thos e i n c us t odyIn c ontra st, an a pp lic atio n f

ile d p ur su ant to § 22 41 mus t befi le d in the“ dis tric t where in 1 the re straint complained of is had.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d).

3 pur s ua ntt o the j udgm e ntof a s t a t e c our t . M e dbe r r y v. C r os by , 351 F . 3d 1049, 1 0 5 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) . I n ge ne r a l , a n a ppl i c a t i on f orha be a s r e l i e f

“ by a pe r s on i n c us t ody unde rthe j ud gm entand sent ence of a S t at e c ou rtof a S t at e w hi ch cont ai ns tw o o r m ore F eder al j ud i ci al di stri ct s, . . . m ay be fi l ed i n t he di stri ctcourtfor the di stri ct w h e r e in s u c h p e r s o n is in c u s to d y o rin th e d is tr ic t c o u r t f o rth e d is tr ic t w ith in w hi ch S t at e c ou rtw as hel d w hi ch conv i ct ed and sent ence d h i m and each of such di s tr i c tc our t s s ha l l ha ve c onc ur r e ntj ur i s di c t i on t o e nt e r t a i n the a ppl i c a t i on. ” 28 U . S . C . § 2 24 1(d). In consi deri ng the prop ervenu e f or chal l enges t o st at e c ou rt 1 c o n v ic tio n s , th is c o u r t h a s h e ld th a t: A p r is o n e rm a y b r in g a h a b e a s p e titio n a tta c k in g a c o n v ic tio n in anot her s t at e w hi ch m ay subj ec thi m t o future c ust od y i n t hatst at e. In tha ts i tua t i on, j ur i s di c t i on e xi s t s c onc ur r e nt l y i n both the di s tr i c tof the pr i s one r ’ s c onf

i ne m e nta nd the di s tr i c ti n the s t a t e i n w hi c h the c onvi c t i on w hi c h he s e e ks t o a t t a c k w a s e nt e r e d. T he m os tc onve ni e nt f orum w i l l of

t e n be the di s tr i c ti n the s t a t e w hos e c onvi c t i on i s be i ng a t t a c ke d, a nd a tr a ns f

e rof the c a s e t o tha tdi s tr i c ti s pe r m i s s i bl e , but notr e qui r e d. B yr d v M ar t i n, 75 4 F . 2d 96 3, 96 5 (11 th C i r. 19 85 ) ( concl ud i ng thatthere w as concurrentj uri sdi ct i on w here the pet i t i on erhad b ee n con vi ct ed and sent ence d for a c r im e b y b o th a N o r th C a r o lin a s ta te c o u r t a n d a f e d e r a l d is tr ic t c o u r t lo c a te d inOn re mand, the district cour t should consider Wright’ s petition in conjunction with the 2 mandates of

§ 2254. Medber

ry , 351 F.3d at 1062. Additionally , the district court may transfer the ca se to a fe deral district court in Indiana if it determines that cour t to be the most convenient. By rd, 754 F .2d at 965. Notably, Wright had requeste d such a tra nsfer , which the district cour t denied. 4 N or th C a r ol i na , the pe t i t i one rw a s s e r vi ng hi s f e de r a l s e nt e nc e i n A l a ba m a , a nd the habeas pet i t i on chal l engi ng the st at e c ou rtj ud gm entw as fi l ed i n A l abam a) ; se e a ls o W h ite v . B u tte r w o r th , 7 0 F .3 d 5 7 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ) ( c itin g B r a d e n v . 3 0 th J udi c i a l C i r c ui tC our tof K e ntuc ky , 410 U . S . 484, 498- 499 & n. 15, 93 S . C t . 1123, 11 31 -32 & n. 15 , 35 L . E d. 2d 44 3 (19 73 )) . A ppl y i ng thi s pr e c e de ntt o the i ns t a ntc a s e , W r i ghtpr ope r l y f i l e d hi s pe t i t i on i n the di s tr i c ti n w hi c h he w a s c onf i ne d, a nd the di s tr i c tc our te r r e d by di s m i s s i ng the pet i t i on for l ac k o f j uri sdi ct i on . A cc ordi ng l y, w e VA C A TE the di s m i s s a l of the pe t i t i on a nd RE MAND fo r fu rth er p ro ceed i n g s. 2