Hamilton v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

• Court: District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
• Decided: April 5, 2024
• Docket: 3:24-cv-00449
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

BARRY LEE HAMILTON, No. 3:24-cv-0449 Petitioner : : (Judge Munley)

v. . COMMONWEALTH OF PA, Respondent :

MEMORANDUM I. Background On March 14, 2024, Petitioner, Barry Lee Hamilton, an inmate confined

in the Fayette State Correctional Institution (“SCl-Fayette”), Labelle, Pennsylvania, filed the above captioned petition for writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254. (Doc. 1). He challenges a conviction imposed by the Bucks County Court of Common Pleas. (Doc. 1). For the reasons

outlined below, the Court will transfer the petition to the United States District

Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

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, 433-436

(2004) (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 442. 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. Petitioner is challenging his 2013 conviction in the Bucks County Court

of Common Pleas. (Doc. 1). The district in which Petitioner was convicted is

the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. However, Petitioner is confined at SCI-

Fayette, which is located in the Western District of Pennsylvania. Petitioner

_2-

has no connection whatsoever with the Middle District of Pennsylvania, and

this Court is without jurisdiction. However, notwithstanding the issue of jurisdiction, a court may transfer

any civil action for the convenience of the parties or witnesses, or in the

interest of justice, to any district where the action might have been brought. 28 U.S.C. §1404(a); See also, Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484 (1973). Because habeas proceedings are generally considered

civil in nature, see Hinton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987), the term

“civil action” includes habeas petitions. Parrott_v. Government of Virgin Isiands, 230 F.3d 615, 620 (3d Cir. 2000). Title 28 U.S.C. §2241(d) provides: (d) 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. The 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 court for hearing and determination.

_3-

Since the amendment of that section, it has been the agreed practice of the United States District Courts for the Eastern, Middle and Western

Districts of Pennsylvania, to transfer any habeas petitions filed by a petitioner incarcerated in their respective districts to the district which includes the

county where the conviction was had. The Petitioner is attacking a conviction imposed by the Court of Common Pleas for Bucks County, Pennsylvania. Since the trial court, as well as any records, witnesses and counsel, are

located within the United States District Court for the Eastern District of

Pennsylvania, it would be prudent to transfer this action to the Eastern

District. Ill. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, the Court will transfer the above

captioned action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of

Pennsylvania. A separate Order will be entered. JUDGE JULIA K. MUNL Un ted Sates District< Gal .