Source: https://id.scribd.com/document/2698556/Pierce-v-Roberts-et-al-Document-No-7
Timestamp: 2019-11-19 04:50:49
Document Index: 488109468

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2254', '§ 2254', '§ 2241', '§ 2241', '§ 2254', '§ 1631']

Report And Recommendation | Habeas Corpus | Legal Procedure
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Christopher Pierce, recommending the Court transfer the action to the District of Kansas. Parties advised of their right to object to the R&R. Objections to R&R due by 5/4/2006. This R&R terminates the referral to Judge Robert Bacharach.. Signed by Judge Robert Bacharach on 04/14/06. (bf, ) 5:2006cv00375 Oklahoma Western District Court
simpanSimpan Pierce v. Roberts et al - Document No. 7 Untuk Nanti
ROBINSON v. MCDONOUGH - Document No. 5
Flores v. United States of America - Document No. 3
Cano-Favela v. United States of America - Document No. 2
(HC) Alcaraz v. Giurbino - Document No. 6
SMITH v. COMMISSIONER OF THE INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS - Document No. 4
(JFM)(HC) Steadman v. Campbell - Document No. 4
(HC) McEachern v. Carey - Document No. 5
Pierce v. Roberts et al Doc.
Case 5:06-cv-00375-R Document 7 Filed 04/14/2006 Page 1 of 3
CHRISTOPHER PIERCE, )
v. ) Case No. CIV-06-375-R
RAY ROBERTS and PHIL KLINE, )
In this habeas action, a Kansas prisoner challenges the execution of his Kansas
sentence.1 According to the petition, Mr. Pierce had been temporarily housed in Oklahoma.2
During that time, the Petitioner allegedly sent the Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board
documents proving his innocence, and Oklahoma officials were going to grant him parole
on his Kansas conviction.3 Before he could be paroled, Mr. Pierce was transferred to
Mr. Pierce filed the petition on a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 form. See Petition for a Writ of Habeas
Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 by a Person in State Custody (Apr. 6, 2006). While the
Petitioner maintains his innocence, he is not attacking his Kansas conviction. Instead, Mr. Pierce
is challenging a prison transfer, which allegedly interrupted his pending parole. See id. at p. 6. This
claim is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See United States v. Furman, 112 F.3d 435, 438 (10th Cir.
1997) (claims “concerning . . . parole . . . , go to the execution of sentence and, thus, should be
brought against defendant’s custodian under 28 U.S.C. § 2241”).
Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 by a Person in State
Custody at p. 6 & Exhibit C (Apr. 6, 2006).
Custody at p. 6 (Apr. 6, 2006).
Case 5:06-cv-00375-R Document 7 Filed 04/14/2006 Page 2 of 3
Kansas.4 Thus, the Petitioner seeks an “order releasing him from incarceration.”5 The Court
should transfer the action to the District of Kansas.
The Court must have jurisdiction over the Petitioner’s custodian.6 Mr. Pierce was
convicted in Kansas, and his Kansas custodian is not subject to jurisdiction in the Western
District of Oklahoma.7 Thus, the Court should transfer the action to the District of Kansas
in the interest of justice.8
The Petitioner is advised of his right to object to this report and recommendation by
May 4, 2006.9 If the Petitioner does object, he must file a written objection with the Court
Clerk for the United States District Court, Western District of Oklahoma.10 The Petitioner
is further advised that if he does not timely object, he would waive his right to appeal the
suggested transfer to the District of Kansas.11
See Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court, 410 U.S. 484, 495 (1973).
See Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 435 (2004) (“In habeas challenges to present physical
confinement, . . ., the district of confinement is synonymous with the district court that has territorial
jurisdiction over the proper respondent.” (emphasis in original)); see also Griggs v. United States,
79 Fed. Appx. 359, 362 (10th Cir. Oct. 17, 2003) (unpublished op.) (Western District of Oklahoma
lacked jurisdiction over a 2241 petition when the petitioner was housed in Texas).
See 28 U.S.C. § 1631 (2000).
See W.D. Okla. Local Civil Rule 72.1(a).
See Haney v. Addison, 175 F.3d 1217, 1219-20 (10th Cir. 1999).
See Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991).
Case 5:06-cv-00375-R Document 7 Filed 04/14/2006 Page 3 of 3
The referral to the undersigned has been terminated.
Entered this 14th day of April, 2006.
Dokumen Serupa dengan Pierce v. Roberts et al - Document No. 7
Belton v. Endicott - Document No. 4
(HC) Denham v. Sisto et al - Document No. 8
Stephenson v. Buss - Document No. 13
Mejoff vs Dir of Prisons
Populer di United States Federal Law
(HC) Jackson v. Folsom State Prison et al - Document No. 4