Kaballah v. Krow, 0:21-cv-00082

Plaintiff, Conrai Kaballah, Jr., filed a habeas corpus petition in the Eastern District of Kentucky challenging his state conviction from Jefferson County, located in the Western District of Kentucky.
The petition was assigned and proceeded in the Eastern District; Magistrate Judge recommended denial, which was adopted and final judgment entered over Kaballah’s objections.
After judgment, Kaballah moved to vacate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), arguing improper venue under the court's Local Rule 3.2(b), which states such petitions should be filed in the division where the conviction occurred.
The venue issue was not raised by either party or the court until after final judgment, discovered only upon preparing the notice of appeal.
Kaballah sought to have the judgment vacated and the case transferred to the Western District of Kentucky.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether improper venue under Local Rule 3.2(b) required vacating judgment after final decision	Venue was improper and should have been in the Western District; thus the judgment should be vacated and transferred.	No specific counterargument noted; implicit defense of court’s process.	Venue defect not sufficient to vacate judgment; no prejudice to Kaballah.
Whether the venue provision was waivable or forfeitable in habeas cases	Raised for the first time post-judgment; claimed it was jurisdictional and not waivable.	N/A; court considered as a forfeited issue when unraised timely.	Venue is waivable/forfeitable; not timely asserted, thus forfeited.
Whether Local Rule violations can compel relief under FRCP 60(b) post-judgment	Rule violation entitles Kaballah to relief under Rule 60(b).	N/A; court focused on discretionary application of local rules.	Violation of Local Rule 3.2(b) not sufficient for Rule 60(b) relief.
Whether subject-matter jurisdiction was proper under federal statutes	Venue defect deprived the court of authority to adjudicate.	N/A; court holds jurisdiction proper under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.	Court had statutory jurisdiction; local rules do not restrict it.

United States v. Reyes, 307 F.3d 451 (6th Cir. 2002) (Rule 60(b) relief limited to excusable mistakes or substantive errors)
S.S. v. E. Kentucky Univ., 532 F.3d 445 (6th Cir. 2008) (discretion in applying local rules)
Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183 (2010) (local rules have the force of law, but must be consistent with federal law)
Penney v. United States, 870 F.3d 459 (6th Cir. 2017) (court rules cannot alter subject-matter jurisdiction)
Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365 (1978) (rules cannot create or withdraw federal jurisdiction)