allowing transfer of habeas corpus case from the District of South Dakota to the District of Montana because “Montana, the state of conviction and sentencing, is the most convenient forum because of the availability of witnesses and records”
How later courts described this case
- allowing transfer of habeas corpus case from the District of South Dakota to the District of Montana because “Montana, the state of conviction and sentencing, is the most convenient forum because of the availability of witnesses and records”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Not for Publication
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
ADRIANGUILLE,
Petitioner, Civ. No. 23-2139 (PGS)
THE MONTANA BOARD OF : MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
PARDONS AND PAROLE, et al. :
Respondents. :
PETER G. SHERIDAN, U.S.D.J.
Petitioner, Adrian Guille (“Petitioner”), is a prisoner serving a sentence
imposed by the court of the State of Montana at New Jersey State Prison, in Trenton,
New Jersey pursuant to the Interstate Corrections Compact (“ICC”). (ECF No. 1 at
11; ECF No. 7-1 at 1.) Petitioner filed the instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus
(“Petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. |.) Respondents filed a motion
to change venue (“Motion”). (ECF No. 7.) Petitioner has not replied. For the reasons
expressed below, Respondents’ Motion will be granted and this matter will be
transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Montana.
On April 14, 2023, Petitioner filed the instant Petition. (ECF No. 1.) Petitioner
alleges that the Montana Board of Pardons have wrongfully denied him an in-person
initial parole hearing in Montana. (/d. at 1, 5.) Petitioner is currently incarcerated at
New Jersey State Prison (“NJSP”), serving a criminal sentence that was imposed by
the court in the State of Montana. (/d. at 11.) Petitioner became eligible for parole in
Montana in June 2022. (/d.)
The Petition names as Respondents: the Montana Board of Pardons and
Parole; the Chief of Staff of the Montana Board of Pardons and Parole; the Attorney
General of Montana; the Prison Commissioner of the State of Montana; the Director
of Montana State Prison (collectively “Montana Respondents”); the Attorney
General of New Jersey (misidentified in the Petition as Nicholas Falcone); the
Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Corrections; and the Director of
New Jersey State Prison (collectively “New Jersey Respondents”). Ud. at 1.)
Petitioner only asserts a claim against the Montana Respondents. (See generally id.)
Upon screening, the Court ordered Respondents to answer the Petition. (ECF
No. 3.) The New Jersey Respondents submitted a motion to change venue, and
requests the Court transfer this matter to the United State District Court for the
District of Montana. (ECF No. 7.)
. Il.
As explained above, Petitioner acknowledges in his Petition that he is
currently serving a Montana sentence at NJSP and challenges a Montana Board of
Pardons and Parole decision to deny him an in-person parole hearing. (See ECF No.
L.) .
Section 2241 provides in relevant part:
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.
28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). Furthermore, “[t]he 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 application to the other district ccurt for hearing and
determination.” Jd.
Courts may transfer a habeas corpus action “for the convenience of parties
and witnesses to any other district where it might have been brought.” Verissimo v.
204 F. Supp. 2d 818, 820 (D.N.J. 2002) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a); Braden
v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court, 410 U.S. 484, 493-94 (1973)). Venue considerations
include, but are not limited to, (1) where “the material events took place,” (2) where
the “records and witnesses pertinent to petitioner’s claim are likely to be found,” and
(3) whether the forum is convenient for the parties. Jd. at 493-94. In Braden, the -
Supreme Court addressed the question of the proper venue of a habeas petition
. 3 .
brought by an Alabama inmate challenging Kentucky’s failure to bring him to trial
on a then three-year-old indictment, concluding that venue was most appropriate in
Kentucky. /d. at 500. The Court reasoned:
[T]he State holding the prisoner in immediate confinement
acts as agent for the demanding State, and the custodian
State is presumably indifferent to the resolution of the
prisoner’s attack on the detainer. Here, for example, the
petitioner is confined in Alabama, but his dispute is with
the Commonwealth of Kentucky, not the State of
. Alabama. Under these circumstances it would serve no —
useful purpose to . . . require that the action be brought in. .
Alabama. □
Id. at 499-500; see also Wilkins v. Erickson, 484 F.2d 969, 973 (8th Cir. 1973)
(allowing transfer of habeas corpus case from the District of South Dakota to the
District of Montana because “Montana, the state of conviction and sentencing, is the
most convenient forum because of the availability of witnesses and records”).
A transfer of venue would be in the interests of justice as the original action,
conviction, sentence occurred in Montana. Any parole records and potential
witnesses would be located in Montana. Additionally, Montana parole law applies
to Petitioner’s claim that Montana Respondents are denying him an in-person parole
hearing. Although Petitioner is confined in New Jersey, his claim is against the □□
Montana Defendants. Considering all of the circumstances, the Court will grant New
Jersey Respondents’ motion to change venue and will transfer the action pursuant to
the United States District Court, District of Montana. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
ORDER
This matter having come before the Court on Respondents’ motion to change
venue (ECF No. 7); the Court having considered the motion; and for the reasons
stated above,
IT IS on this “day of January 2024;
ORDERED that Respondents’ motion to change venue (ECF No. 7) is
GRANTED, it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shalt transfer this habeas action to the.
United States District Court for the District of Montana, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1404(a); it is finally
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall serve this Memorandum and
Order upon Plaintiff by regular U Ss. mail and CLOSE this case.
oe PETER G. SHERIDAN, U.S.D.J.