Cammack v. Heirholzer, No. 5:2016cv00712 - Document 6 (W.D. Tex. 2016)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S ORDER. Plaintiff's claims are TRANSFERRED to the Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division. Signed by Judge Michael H. Schneider on 7/13/16. (ljw, ) [Transferred from Texas Eastern on 7/14/2016.]
Cammack v. Heirholzer Doc. 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LUFKIN DIVISION SUSAN-REBECCA CAMMACK § VS. § KERR COUNTY SHERIFF § CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:16-CV-90 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S ORDER Petitioner, Susan-Rebecca Cammack, proceeding pro se, filed what appeared to be a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Although not stated explicitly in the petition, it appears petitioner is a pre-trial detainee at the Kerr County Jail based on the address provided. On June 24, 2016, the Magistrate Judge to whom this case was referred entered an order requiring venue in this case be transferred to the Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division. Petitioner objected to this order arguing venue should remain in the Eastern District of Texas, Lufkin Division, as that is where petitioner filed the suit “in equity.” Analysis In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, a judge of the court may reconsider any pretrial matter referred to a magistrate judge under subparagraph (A) where it has been shown that the magistrate judge’s order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Having examined the allegations in petitioner’s appeal of the Magistrate Judge’s order, this Court finds no support for petitioner’s objections. Section 2241 pre-conviction habeas petitions can 1 Dockets.Justia.com be filed only in the federal district where the petitioner is in custody. Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 442-43 (2004). Petitioner appears to be confined as a pre-trial detainee at the Kerr County Jail in Kerr County which is located within the Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division. Venue is, therefore, not proper in the Eastern District of Texas, Lufkin Division. A District Court “may transfer the application for hearing and determination to the district court having jurisdiction to . entertain it.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(b). The Court finds the order of the Magistrate Judge neither clearly erroneous or contrary to law. According, petitioner’s appeal of the Magistrate Judge’s order should be denied. It is, therefore, ORDERED that petitioner’s objections are OVERRULED and petitioner’s appeal of the Magistrate Judge’s order is DISMISSED. Plaintiff’s claims are TRANSFERRED to the Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division. SIGNED this 13th day of July, 2016. ____________________________________ MICHAEL H. SCHNEIDER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Terms of Service