United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
June 28, 2005.
KEESHAWN CRAWFORD, Petitioner,
PENNSYLVANIA ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al., Respondents.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: A. RICHARD CAPUTO, District Judge
THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:
Petitioner, Keeshawn Crawford, an inmate at the State
Correctional Institution in Huntingdon ("SCI-Huntingdon"),
Pennsylvania, commenced this pro se action with a petition for
writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to the provisions of
28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner contemporaneously filed a motion for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2). Thereafter,
Petitioner filed an amended petition (Doc. 7). Named as
Respondents are the Superintendent of SCI-Huntingdon, the
Pennsylvania Attorney General, The District Attorney of
Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, and Warden James Grace.
Petitioner states that he was convicted in the Montgomery County
Court of Common Pleas for the offenses of (1) third degree
aggravated assault and (2) possession of an instrument of crime.
(Doc. 1 at 4.) As a result of the convictions, Petitioner was
sentenced on August 16, 1999 to a term of twenty-two and a half
(22½) to forty-five (45) years imprisonment. (Id.) Petitioner
claims his counsel was ineffective, the prosecutor withheld
exculpatory evidence, and he was denied due process in his trial.
For the following reasons, the motion to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted for the purpose of
filing this action, and the case will be transferred to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
A petition for writ of habeas corpus under § 2254 may be filed
in the district court for the district in which petitioner is in
custody, or it may be filed in the district court of the district
in which the challenged state court proceedings took place, and
each of these courts shall have concurrent jurisdiction to
entertain the application. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). Pursuant to the
provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a district court may, for the
convenience of the parties and witnesses, and in the interest of
justice, transfer any civil action to any other district where it
might have been brought.
Since Petitioner is challenging a decision of the Montgomery
County Court of Common Pleas, and the state court and records, as
well as the witnesses and testimony, are all located in
Montgomery County, and Montgomery County is located in the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the convenience of the parties
and witnesses and the interest of justice would be served by
transfer of this action to the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
ACCORDINGLY, THIS 28thp> DAY OF JUNE, 2005, IT IS HEREBY
1) Petitioner's motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis (Doc. 2)is GRANTED for the purpose of
filing this petition.
2) The Clerk of Court is directed to transfer this
case to the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania. 3) The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.