The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
AARON PRICE, : No. 3:24cv1923
Petitioner (Judge Munley)
v.
MELISSA HAINSWORTH, etal,
Respondents
MEMORANDUM
Petitioner Aaron Price (“Price”), an inmate confined at the State
Correctional Institution, Laurel Highlands, in Somerset, Pennsylvania (“SCI-
Laurel Highlands’), filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1). Price challenges certain decisions of the
Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (the “Board”). (Id.). For the
following reasons, the court will transfer the petition to the United States District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1406(a)
and 1404(a).
I. Background
Price is currently incarcerated at SCl-Laurel Highlands. (Doc. 1). On
December 5, 2005, he entered a no contest plea to criminal homicide and
endangering the welfare of children in the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin
County. (Id. at 1; see also Commonwealth v. Price, No. CP-22-CR-0001084-
2005 (Dauphin Cnty. Ct. Com. PI.)). Price was sentenced to a term of
imprisonment of 15 to 30 years. (ld.).
On September 6, 2022, August 14, 2023, and August 15, 2024, the Board
interviewed Price. (Doc. 1, at 1). The Board denied Price parole on each
occasion. (ld.).
On November 8, 2024, Price filed the instant federal habeas petition. (Doc.
1). Price argues that the Board’s denial of parole was arbitrary and capricious
and violates his constitutional rights. (Id.).
ll. Discussion
“The federal habeas corpus statute straightforwardly provides that the
proper respondent to a habeas petition is ‘the person who has custody over [the
petitioner].’ 28 U.S.C. § 2242, see also § 2243.... [T]hese provisions contemplate
a proceeding against some person who has the immediate custody of the party
detained, with the power to produce the body of such party before the court or
judge, that he may be liberated if no sufficient reason is shown to the contrary.”
Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 434-35 (2004) (emphasis in original) (citations
omitted).
In Padilla, the Court added that “[t]he plain language of the habeas statute
thus confirms the general rule that for core habeas petitions challenging present
physical confinement, jurisdiction lies in only one district; the district of
confinement.” Id. at 443. The district court must have personal jurisdiction over
the petitioner's custodian. Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky, 410
U.S. 484, 495 (1973). This court does not have that jurisdiction.
Although Price states that he was convicted in the Dauphin County Court o
Common Pleas, which is located in the Middle District of Pennsylvania, his
habeas petition makes clear that he is not challenging the lawfulness of his
underlying conviction. (Doc. 1). Instead, Price is challenging subsequent actions
of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole. Under the circumstances in
this case, it would be more practical and equitable to transfer Price’s petition to
the Western District of Pennsylvania. See 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (permitting
transfer of venue for convenience of parties and witnesses). Both Price and his
custodian, Warden Hainsworth, reside in the Western District of Pennsylvania.
See 28 U.S.C. § 118(c) (Somerset County is in the Western District of
Pennsylvania); see also United States v. Kennedy, 851 F.2d 689, 690 (3d
Cir.1988) (where a prisoner challenges the manner in which the Parole
Commission is executing his sentence, the proper forum is the district where the
prisoner is confined). It will likely be easier for officials to transport Price to court
in the Western District of Pennsylvania, rather than to the Middle District of
Pennsylvania. Finally, documents relating to the Board’s decisions to revoke
Price’s parole would be available at SCl-Laurel Highlands.
lll. Conclusion
Consistent with the foregoing, the court will transfer Price’s habeas petition
to the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. (Doc.
1). An appropriate order shall issue.
y So
(
Date: November 2 , 2024 ws
JUDG LIA K. MUNLE
United States District Cou
/ \
/
)
\ □
\