Morgan v. Masquelier

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
MICHAEL EUGENE MORGAN, JR., )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) Case No. CIV-26-395-PRW
)
JOHN MASQUELIER, )
)
Respondent. )
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner Michael Eugene Morgan, Jr., 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). United States District Judge Patrick R. Wyrick 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 Northern 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.
(emphasis added). 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d) creates a narrow exception to this rule for § 2254
habeas actions challenging a state court conviction:
Case 5:26-cv-00395-PRW Document 5 Filed 03/09/26 Page 1 of 3

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 Tulsa County, Case No. CF-19-873.
See
ECF No. 1:1. Tulsa County is located within the territorial jurisdiction of the Northern
District of Oklahoma.
See 28 U.S.C. § 116(a). Petitioner is, however, currently confined
in James Crabtree Correctional Center located in Helena, Oklahoma, Alfalfa County,
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
conviction was obtained. Moreover, in the event of any hearing, trial records, trial counsel
1 The undersigned judicially notices the location of Helena, 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 ...").
Case 5:26-cv-00395-PRW Document 5 Filed 03/09/26 Page 2 of 3

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 finds that the interest of justice warrants the
transfer of this matter, and recommends that this matter, including Petitioner’s pending
Motion to Proceed
In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 2), be transferred to the United States
District Court for the Northern 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
March 26, 2026, 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 March 9, 2026.
Case 5:26-cv-00395-PRW Document 5 Filed 03/09/26 Page 3 of 3