Harold Wilson Stone, III v. Rosie Rivera

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: November 19, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-02120
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 5 AT TACOMA 6 HAROLD WILSON STONE, III, Case No. 2:25-cv-02120-TL-TLF 7 Petitioner, v. REPORT AND 8 RECOMMENDATION ROSIE RIVERA, 9 Noted for December 4, 2025. Respondent. 10

11 This matter comes before the Court on petitioner’s application for a writ of 12 habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner Harold Wilson Stone, III has filed a 13 motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and a proposed habeas corpus petition. 14 Dkt. 1, 3. Petitioner is pro se, and is incarcerated at the Salt Lake County Adult 15 Detention Center in Salt Lake City, Utah. Dkt. 1. He alleges irregularities in the 16 processing of his prior habeas filings in both the United States District Court for Utah 17 and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit and asks this Court to issue 18 the writ. Id. Petitioner also asserts the Utah Third District Court has lacked jurisdiction 19 since the onset of the events leading to petitioner’s incarceration, in part because the 20 Salt Lake County District Attorney’s Office allegedly violated applicable statutes. Id. He 21 contends that this alleged jurisdictional defect has resulted in a denial of due process 22 and that habeas relief is the only available remedy. Id. 23 The Court should hold that venue is not proper in the Western District of 24 Washington and that the case should be transferred to the District of Utah in the interest 1 of justice. For the reasons discussed below, the Court recommends this case be 2 transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Utah. 3 BACKGROUND 4 Petitioner challenges the state court’s jurisdiction and names as respondent

5 Rosie Rivera, the official responsible for the Salt Lake County Adult Detention Center, 6 where he is confined. Id. He alleges that he was placed on probation and that a hearing 7 on an order to show cause was scheduled for June 30, 2025, to address alleged 8 probation violations. Id. According to petitioner, he received no notice of the hearing, 9 after which a state court judge issued a no-bail warrant and later denied bail on two 10 additional occasions. Id. He contends the warrant was facially invalid. Id. Petitioner 11 states he was arrested in Salt Lake City on July 3, 2025, and has remained in custody 12 since. Id. 13 The filing fee has not been paid, IFP status has not been decided, service of 14 process has not been directed, and no respondent has appeared in this action.

15 DISCUSSION 16 Venue may be raised by the Court sua sponte where defendants have not filed 17 responsive pleadings and the time for doing so has not run. See Costlow v. Weeks, 790 18 F.2d 1486, 1488 (9th Cir. 1986). Venue is proper in (1) the judicial district in which any 19 defendant resides, if all of the defendants reside in the same state; (2) the judicial 20 district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim 21 occurred, or a substantial part of the property that is the subject of the action is situated; 22 or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant may be found, if there is no district in 23 which the action may otherwise be brought. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). When venue is

24 1 improper, the district court has the discretion to either dismiss the case or transfer it “in 2 the interest of justice.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). 3 All events alleged by petitioner occurred in Salt Lake City, Utah. Dkt. 1. Utah 4 constitutes a single federal judicial district. 28 U.S.C. § 125. Petitioner has named no

5 respondent who resides or operates within the Western District of Washington. The sole 6 respondent is the Sheriff of Salt Lake County, whose duties occur entirely in Utah. 7 Petitioner is also incarcerated in Utah. Thus, the Western District of Washington is not a 8 proper venue for this action. Because venue is improper in this District, the Court has 9 discretion to either dismiss the action or transfer it “in the interest of justice.” See 28 10 U.S.C. § 1406(a). The Court finds that dismissing this action and directing plaintiff to 11 refile in the District of Utah would cause unnecessary delay. 12 Accordingly, the Court should hold that transferring, rather than dismissing, this case 13 is appropriate. 14 CONCLUSION

15 The Court should find venue in this District is improper. In the interest of justice, 16 the Court should transfer this case to the proper venue. The Court recommends 17 transferring the proposed writ (Dkt. 1) and deferring the decision on plaintiff’s IFP 18 motion (Dkt. 3) and the screening of his proposed petition (Dkt. 1) to the District of Utah. 19 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the parties shall 20 have fourteen (14) days from service of this report to file written objections. See also 21 Fed. R. Civ. P. 6. Failure to file objections will result in a waiver of those objections for 22 purposes of de novo review by the district judge, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), and can 23 result in a waiver of those objections for purposes of appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474

24 1 U.S. 140, 142 (1985); Miranda v. Anchondo, 684 F.3d 844, 848 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations 2 omitted). Accommodating the time limit imposed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Clerk is 3 directed to set the matter for consideration on December 4, 2025, as noted in the 4 caption. ‘’

5 6

Dated this 19th day of November, 2025. 8 9 10 A

11 Theresa L. Fricke United States Magistrate Judge 12

13 14

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24