Narrative Opinion Summary
Lardante Sumbry, an Indiana state prisoner, appeals the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition due to improper venue. The district court's judgment is reviewed for abuse of discretion, and the appeal is affirmed. The court granted a Certificate of Appealability (COA) specifically regarding the potential transfer of the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana in the interest of justice. It was determined that Sumbry would not suffer prejudice from the decision not to transfer, which is a crucial consideration in such cases. Uncertified issues raised by Sumbry are treated as a motion to expand the COA, which is denied. All other motions are also denied, and the decision is affirmed. The ruling is not intended for publication and cannot be cited, per 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Certificate of Appealabilitysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: A Certificate of Appealability was granted to consider the potential transfer of the case in the interest of justice.
Reasoning: The court granted a Certificate of Appealability (COA) specifically regarding the potential transfer of the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana in the interest of justice.
Denial of Motion to Expand Certificate of Appealabilitysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Uncertified issues are considered as a motion to expand the Certificate of Appealability and are denied.
Reasoning: Uncertified issues raised by Sumbry are treated as a motion to expand the COA, which is denied.
Habeas Corpus Petition Venuesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The dismissal of a habeas corpus petition due to improper venue is affirmed when the petitioner does not suffer prejudice from the lack of transfer.
Reasoning: Lardante Sumbry, an Indiana state prisoner, appeals the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition due to improper venue.
Non-Publication and Citation Restrictionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The ruling is not intended for publication and cannot be cited according to specific court rules.
Reasoning: The ruling is not intended for publication and cannot be cited, per 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Prejudice in Venue Transfer Decisionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that there was no prejudice towards the petitioner from the decision not to transfer the case, which is critical in deciding such matters.
Reasoning: It was determined that Sumbry would not suffer prejudice from the decision not to transfer, which is a crucial consideration in such cases.