Davis v. State of Florida
3:21-cv-01030
M.D. Fla.Aug 10, 2021Background
- Petitioner Karla Davis, pro se, filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging her 2014 Duval County (State v. Davis) conviction.
- Davis is confined at Lowell Annex Correctional Institution in Ocala, Florida, which lies in the Middle District of Florida.
- The petition was filed in the Northern District of Florida, which is neither the district of conviction nor the district of incarceration.
- The Secretary responded on the merits and mistakenly asserted venue was proper in the Northern District.
- The magistrate judge found venue/jurisdiction concerns under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d), saw no timeliness, successive-petition, or exhaustion defects raised, and recommended transfer to the Middle District of Florida under 28 U.S.C. § 1631.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper venue/jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d) | Davis filed in Northern District (petition challenging Duval County conviction; incarcerated in Ocala) | Secretary conceded venue was proper in Northern District (incorrectly asserting prison is within this court's jurisdiction) | Northern District is not the district of conviction or incarceration; transfer recommended to Middle District |
| Is § 2241(d) jurisdictional or venue-only? | (Petitioner did not press a contrary legal theory) | Secretary did not assert § 2241(d) jurisdictional limits as a defense | Eleventh Circuit unsettled; court declines to resolve and avoids a jurisdictional ruling |
| Transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1631 appropriate? | Transfer serves justice and preserves petitioner's rights | Secretary argued merits but did not oppose transfer on jurisdictional grounds | Transfer to Middle District authorized and recommended as in the interest of justice |
| Exceptions to transfer (time-bar, successive, exhaustion) | No timeliness, successive-petition, or exhaustion deficiencies alleged | Secretary did not argue those exceptions | No applicable exceptions found; transfer is appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Rameses v. U.S. Dist. Ct., [citation="523 F. App'x 691"] (11th Cir.) (affirming dismissal where petitioner was convicted and incarcerated outside the forum)
- Bozeman v. Lambert, 587 F. Supp. 1021 (M.D. Ala. 1984) (treating § 2241(d) as a venue statute)
- Wilder v. Lambert, 762 F.2d 1022 (11th Cir. 1985) (affirming judgment related to venue/jurisdiction questions in habeas context)
- Dobard v. Johnson, 749 F.2d 1503 (11th Cir. 1985) (endorsing transfer under § 1631 when forum lacks jurisdiction)
- Guenther v. Holt, 173 F.3d 1328 (11th Cir. 1999) (discussing limits on transfer when petition is time-barred or successive)
- Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426 (U.S. 2004) (noting objections to venue/personal-jurisdiction-type issues can be waived)
- Clark v. Oklahoma, [citation="789 F. App'x 680"] (10th Cir.) (refusing transfer where petitioner had not exhausted state remedies)
- U.S. ex rel. Ruffin v. Mancusi, 300 F. Supp. 686 (E.D.N.Y. 1969) (treating § 2241(d) as venue and transferring under venue statutes)