Lawyers: is José Padilla forum-shopping? If so, why?

[Eva_Luna]

To summarize the in-house memo we received at work (I’m not sure whether it’s copyrighted): the Supreme Court yesterday issued a decision in Ashcroft vs. Padilla, in which, as near as I can make out, they decided they had no jurisdiction to rule on his habeas petition because it was filed in the Southern District of New York, but Padilla had already been moved to South Carolina, and therefore the defendant named in the habeas suit was the incorrect person, as he was no longer the person with physical custody of the plaintiff.

Entire Supreme Court decision: http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/28june20041215/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/03pdf/03-1027.pdf (44-page .pdf file)

Was this a mistake on the part of the lawyer who filed the petition, or was there a legitimate reason he would try to get jurisdiction in NY rather than South Carolina? What other political considerations might have been involved in this decision?

[SmackFu]

He was originally arrested in Chicago on a materials witness warrant issued by the Southern District. His lawyer was court-appointed by a judge there and had already argued a few motions for him. And they try to put forth an argument for the venue in their (amended) habeas petition:

Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (“United States Attorney’s Office”) because this Court has unique familiarity with the facts and circumstances of this case and the resolution of the case does not require Padilla’s presence. (Traditional venue con-siderations apply to habeas cases; those include (1) where the material events occurred; (2) where records and witnesses pertinent to the claim are likely to be found; (3) the convenience of the forum for respondent and petitioner; and (4) the familiarity of the court with the applicable laws).