Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Newell v. Davis, H-18-4533. (2018)

Court: District Court, S.D. Texas Number: infdco20190111886 Visitors: 2
Filed: Dec. 11, 2018
Latest Update: Dec. 11, 2018
Summary: Memorandum and Recommendation PETER BRAY , Magistrate Judge . Jimmy Joseph Newell has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254 challenging his conviction and five-year prison sentence imposed in the 54th District Court of McLennan County, Texas. (D.E. 1.) Mr. Newell is housed in Huntsville, Texas. Under 28 U.S.C. 2241(d), when a petition for writ of habeas corpus is filed in a state with two or more federal judicial districts, venue is proper in either the distri
More

Memorandum and Recommendation

Jimmy Joseph Newell has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his conviction and five-year prison sentence imposed in the 54th District Court of McLennan County, Texas. (D.E. 1.) Mr. Newell is housed in Huntsville, Texas.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d), when a petition for writ of habeas corpus is filed in a state with two or more federal judicial districts, venue is proper in either the district where the defendant is in custody, or in the district where the state court that sentenced him is located. The same statutory subsection permits a district court, in the exercise of its discretion, and in furtherance of justice, to transfer the case to the other district.

McLennan County is in the Western District of Texas, Waco Division. 28 U.S.C. § 124(d)(2). The court records are in McLennan County. It is likely that witnesses and other evidence will be in that county as well. To the extent that there is an evidentiary hearing in this case, McLennan County will be more convenient for the parties and witnesses. See 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Therefore, in the interests of justice, the court recommends that this case be transferred to the Western District of Texas, Waco Division.

The parties have fourteen days from service of this memorandum and recommendation to file written objections. Failure to timely file objections will preclude appellate review of factual findings or legal conclusions, except for plain error. See Rule 8(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases; 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer