Trotter v. Harpe

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
JARED M. TROTTER, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) Case No. CIV-23-807-D
)
STEVEN HARPE, )
)
Respondent. )
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner Jared M. Trotter, a state prisoner appearing
pro se, brings this action
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, seeking habeas relief from a state court conviction. (ECF
No. 1). Chief United States District Judge Timothy D. DeGiusti has referred this matter to
the undersigned magistrate judge for initial proceedings consistent with 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(B)-(C).
Under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the undersigned has
promptly examined the petition and, for the following reasons, recommends the transfer
of this action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma.
I. ANALYSIS.
The jurisdiction of Federal courts to grant writs of habeas corpus is governed by
28 U.S.C. § 2241(a):
Writs of habeas corpus may be granted by the Supreme Court, any justice thereof,
the district courts and any circuit judge
within their respective jurisdictions. The
order of a circuit judge shall be entered in the records of the district court of the
district wherein the restraint complained of is had.
6:23-cv-00348-JFH-GLJ Document 6 Filed in ED/OK on 09/22/23 Page 1 of 3

2
(emphasis added). 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d) creates a narrow exception to this rule for § 2254
habeas actions challenging a state court conviction:
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.
"Oklahoma is divided into three judicial districts ... known as the Northern, Eastern,
and Western Districts of Oklahoma." 28 U.S.C. § 116. Here, Petitioner challenges his state
court conviction obtained in the District Court of Okmulgee County, Case No. CF-17-298.
See ECF No. 1:1. Okmulgee County is located within the territorial jurisdiction of the
Eastern District of Oklahoma.
See 28 U.S.C. § 116(b). Petitioner is, however, currently
confined in Lawton Correctional Facility,
see id, which is located within the territorial
jurisdiction of the Western District of Oklahoma.1
See 28 U.S.C. § 116(c).
Under these circumstances, both federal district courts have jurisdiction to
entertain this habeas corpus petition,
see 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d), and this Court may, in its
discretion and the interest of justice, "transfer the application to the other district court
for hearing and determination."
Id.
It has been the experience of the federal district courts in Oklahoma that justice
is normally better served by the adjudication of the case in the district where the
1 The undersigned judicially notices the location of Lawton, Oklahoma.
See Fed. R.
Evid. 201(b);
see also United States v. Piggie, 622 F.2d 486, 488 (10th Cir. 1980)
("Geography has long been peculiarly susceptible to judicial notice for the obvious
reason that geographic locations are facts which are not generally controversial ...").
6:23-cv-00348-JFH-GLJ Document 6 Filed in ED/OK on 09/22/23 Page 2 of 3

3
conviction was obtained. Moreover, in the event of any hearing, trial records, trial counsel
for the prosecution and for Petitioner, as well as any necessary witnesses are more likely
to be available in the district where the prosecution took place. For these reasons, the
federal district courts in Oklahoma have had a longstanding policy favoring transferring
habeas actions to the district of conviction.
II. RECOMMENDATION AND NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT
For these reasons, the undersigned recommends that the interest of justice
warrants the transfer of this matter, including Petitioner’s pending Motion to Proceed
In
Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 2), to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Oklahoma. The Petitioner is advised of his right to file an objection to this Report and
Recommendation with the Clerk of this Court by October 10, 2023 in accordance with
28 U.S.C. § 636 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. Petitioner is further advised that failure to make
timely objection to this Report and Recommendation waives the right to appellate review
of both factual and legal issues contained herein.
Casanova v. Ulibarri, 595 F.3d 1120,
1123 (10th Cir. 2010).
III. STATUS OF REFERRAL
This Report and Recommendation terminates the referral by the District Judge in this
matter.
ENTERED on September 22, 2023.
6:23-cv-00348-JFH-GLJ Document 6 Filed in ED/OK on 09/22/23 Page 3 of 3