Texas Case Summaries
Federal Enforcement »

Carter v. Director, TDCJ-CID — Transferred state habeas petition to the district of conviction

Unreported / Non-Citable

Case
Joseph Delmarco Carter v. Director, TDCJ-CID
Court
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Beaumont Division
Judge
Zack Hawthorn, United States Magistrate Judge
Date Decided
October 22, 2026
Docket No.
1:26-cv-00452
Topics
Habeas Corpus; Venue; Transfer

Background

Joseph Delmarco Carter, a pro se Texas prisoner confined at the Stiles Unit, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the Beaumont Division of the Eastern District of Texas.

Carter was convicted and sentenced in McLennan County, which lies within the Waco Division of the Western District of Texas. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d), a state prisoner may file a federal habeas petition either in the district of confinement or in the district of conviction and sentencing.

The Court’s Holding

The court held that transferring Carter’s petition to the district where he was convicted and sentenced would serve the interests of justice. Although both the district of confinement and the district of conviction had jurisdiction, § 2241(d) permitted the court to transfer the petition to the other eligible district for hearing and determination.

The court therefore ordered the petition transferred to the Waco Division of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. The opinion did not address the merits of Carter’s habeas claims.

Key Takeaways

  • A Texas state prisoner may file a § 2254 petition in either the federal district of confinement or the federal district of conviction and sentencing.
  • A court with jurisdiction may transfer the petition to the other eligible district when doing so serves the interests of justice.
  • The transfer was procedural and did not resolve the merits of Carter’s habeas claims.

Why It Matters

The decision illustrates the discretion federal courts have under § 2241(d) to place state-prisoner habeas proceedings in the district most closely connected to the underlying conviction. Here, that meant transferring the case from the district of confinement to the district encompassing McLennan County.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top