Source: https://de.scribd.com/document/2717029/May-v-Addison-Document-No-5
Timestamp: 2019-08-20 15:37:02
Document Index: 503956472

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2254', '§ 636', '§ 116', '§116', '§ 2241', '§ 2241', '§ 636']

May v. Addison - Document No. 5 | United States District Court | Preliminary Hearing
May v. Addison - Document No. 5
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Lawrence Ray May. It is recommended that this case be transferred to the UnitedStates District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma. Objections to R&R due by 4/24/2007. This R&R disposes of the referral. Signed by Judge Bana Roberts on 4/4/2007. (bc, ) 5:2007cv00367 Oklahoma Western District Court
saveSave May v. Addison - Document No. 5 For Later
Sophie Levy and Edgar Levy v. Pyramid Company of Ithaca and Pyramid Mall Ithaca Merchants, Inc., 871 F.2d 9, 2d Cir. (1989)
Escareno v. Bravo, 10th Cir. (2003)
MOORE v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA - Document No. 2
Civil Procedure Syllabus.pdf
Quintana v. Evans, 10th Cir. (1998)
(HC) Heath v. Board of Prison Terms - Document No. 4
(PC) Turner v. Adams, et al - Document No. 10
DELTA SIGMA THETA SORORITY, INC. v. DEREK & JAMAR PRODUCTION, LLC - Document No. 11
May v. Addison Doc.
Case 5:07-cv-00367-W Document 5 Filed 04/04/2007 Page 1 of 3
LAWRENCE RAY MAY, )
vs. ) Case No. CIV-07-367-W
MIKE ADDISON, )
Petitioner, a state prisoner appearing pro se, brings this action pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254 seeking a writ of habeas corpus. Pursuant to an order entered by United
States District Judge Lee R. West, the matter has been referred to the undersigned
Magistrate Judge for initial proceedings consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
Pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the petition has been
promptly examined and for the reasons set forth herein, it is recommended that the
action be transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
By this action, Petitioner challenges his conviction in the District Court of Bryan
County in Case Nos. CF-2001-471 and CF-2002-294. Bryan County is located in the
Eastern District of Oklahoma. 28 U.S.C. § 116(b). Petitioner is presently incarcerated in
the Joseph Harp Correctional Center which is located within the territorial jurisdiction
of the Western District of Oklahoma. 28 U.S.C. §116(c).
Under these circumstances both federal district courts have jurisdiction to
entertain this habeas corpus petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). It has been the experience of
the federal district courts in Oklahoma that justice is normally better served by the
Case 5:07-cv-00367-W Document 5 Filed 04/04/2007 Page 2 of 3
adjudication of the case in the district where the conviction was obtained, since that is
where the trial court officials and records are located, where trial counsel for the
prosecution and Petitioner are ostensibly available and where any necessary witnesses
usually reside in the event an evidentiary hearing is necessary. Transportation of
Petitioner to any hearing in the Eastern District would be a modest expense for state
and/or federal officials when compared with the costs of an evidentiary hearing in the
Western District. For these reasons, the federal district courts in Oklahoma have had a
longstanding policy favoring the transfer of habeas actions to the district of conviction.
This Court may, in its discretion and in the interest of justice, transfer this action to any
other court in which such action could have been brought. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). Based
on the considerations discussed herein, the undersigned recommends that the case be
transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma for all
For these reasons, it is recommended that this case be transferred to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma. Petitioner is advised of his
right to file an objection to this Report and Recommendation with the Clerk of this Court
on or before the 24th day of April, 2007, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local
Civil Rule 72.1. Petitioner is further advised that failure to make timely objection to this
Report and Recommendation waives the right to appellate review of both the factual and
legal issues contained herein. Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d 656 (10th Cir. 1991). This
Case 5:07-cv-00367-W Document 5 Filed 04/04/2007 Page 3 of 3
Report and Recommendation disposes of all issues referred to the undersigned Magistrate
Judge in the above captioned matter.
ENTERED this 4th day of April, 2007.
Dokumente ähnlich wie May v. Addison - Document No. 5
ArticleIISection1_PHHCvsCIR Digest.docx
Velazques v. Sec
UEMC-AT-Justicial_System-2009.pdf
RAMADAN v. BUSH et al - Document No. 10
Harris v. Mendoza-Powers - Document No. 3
CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S OF LONDON, et al v. CONSOLIDATED CRANE & RIGGING, INC., et al Docket
Mays v. Kingston - Document No. 2
Fernando Rivera Escute v. Gerardo Delgado, Warden, Penitentiary of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, 439 F.2d 891, 1st Cir. (1971)
United States v. Strickland, 4th Cir. (2000)
United Food & Commercial Workers Union, Local 919, Afl-Cio v. Centermark Properties Meriden Square, Inc., Ho Meriden Square Development Co., Doing Business as H. Co. May Centers Meriden Square Partnership, and the May Department Stores Co., Doing Business as Filene's, 30 F.3d 298, 2d Cir. (1994)
Daniel Spuck v. Ammerman Fredric, 3rd Cir. (2011)
The Anti Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996
United States v. George M. Ciapponi, AKA George Norman Schreiber, 77 F.3d 1247, 10th Cir. (1996)