AUSTIN v. STATE OF FLORIDA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION
DAVEION BRESHOD AUSTIN,
Petitioner,
v. 	Case No. 4:26cv003-MCR/MAF
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Respondent.
_____________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
TO TRANSFER HABEAS CORPUS PETITION
On or about December 18, 2025, Daveion Breshod Austin, a state
inmate proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 	ECF No. 1. 	He has also filed a motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). 	ECF No. 2. 	In the § 2254 petition, he
indicates he challenges a judgment entered April 28, 2023, and sentence
imposed July 5, 2023, by the Fourth Judicial Circuit, Clay County, following
a jury trial in case number 2020-CF-1606A. ECF No. 1 at 1-2.
Petitioner Austin is currently incarcerated at the Florida State Prison in
Raiford, Florida, which is located in Union County and falls within the Middle
District of Florida. 	See 28 U.S.C. § 89(b). 	He challenges a state court
judgment from the Fourth Judicial Circuit, Clay County, Florida, which is also
Case 4:26-cv-00003-MCR-MAF Document 4 Filed 01/07/26 Page 1 of 3

Page 2 of 3
Case No. 4:26cv003-MCR/MAF
located in the Middle District of Florida. 	ECF No. 1 at 1; see 28 U.S.C.
§ 89(b).
For federal habeas corpus actions, jurisdiction is appropriate in the
district of confinement and the district of conviction. 	28 U.S.C. § 2241(d)
(providing that state prisoner may file habeas petition in district of conviction
or in district of incarceration). Petitioner Austin is not confined in this district
and does not challenge the judgment of a state court located in this district;
thus, jurisdiction is not appropriate in the Northern District of Florida. 	This
petition, and any pending motions, should be transferred to the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Florida. See 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (“For
the convenience of the parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a
district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division
where it might have been brought or to any district or division to which all
parties have consented.”); see, e.g., Mitchell v. Henderson, 432 F.2d 435,
436 (5th Cir. 1970) (“Under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241(d), state convicts may file
federal habeas corpus petitions in the district either where they are confined
or where they were convicted. 	The purpose of this, of course, is to provide
a more convenient forum for witnesses.”).
Case 4:26-cv-00003-MCR-MAF Document 4 Filed 01/07/26 Page 2 of 3

Page 3 of 3
Case No. 4:26cv003-MCR/MAF
RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully RECOMMENDED that the case file, including any
service copies and pending motions, be TRANSFERRED to the United
States 	District 	Court 	for 	the 	Middle 	District 	of 	Florida, 	for 	all 	further
proceedings.
IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on January 7, 2026.
S/ Martin A. Fitzpatrick
MARTIN A. FITZPATRICK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
Within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this
Report and Recommendation, a party may serve and file specific
written objections to these proposed findings and recommendations.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). A copy of the objections shall be served upon
all other parties. 	A party may respond to another party’s objections
within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. 	Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). 	Any different deadline that may appear on the
electronic docket is for the Court’s internal use only and does not
control. 	If a party fails to object to the magistrate judge’s findings or
recommendations as to any particular claim or issue contained in a
Report and Recommendation, that party waives the right to challenge
on appeal the district court’s order based on the unobjected-to factual
and legal conclusions. 	See 11th Cir. R. 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.
Case 4:26-cv-00003-MCR-MAF Document 4 Filed 01/07/26 Page 3 of 3