Cesar De La Garza, petitioner, Appellant,

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2018).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A18-0847

Cesar De La Garza, petitioner,
Appellant,

vs.

Commissioner of Corrections, Tom Roy,
Respondent.

Filed December 10, 2018
Affirmed
Reilly, Judge

Washington County District Court
File No. 82-CV-18-385

Cesar De La Garza, Pontiac, Illinois (pro se appellant)

Lori Swanson, Attorney General, Kelly S. Kemp, Assistant Attorney General, St. Paul,
Minnesota (for respondent)

Considered and decided by Schellhas, Presiding Judge; Reilly, Judge; and Florey,
Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
REILLY, Judge
Appellant challenges the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas
corpus. Because we discern no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision, we
affirm.

2
FACTS
In 2002, appellant Cesar De La Garza was convicted of second-degree murder and
committed to the Commissioner of Corrections for 326 months. See State v. de la Garza,
No. C9-02-877, 2003 WL 21321387 (Minn. App. June 10, 2003). In 2015, the Minnesota
Department of Corrections transferred appellant to an Illinois prison pursuant to the
Interstate Corrections Compact, where he remains incarcerated today. In 2017, appellant
filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in Minnesot a requesting a transfer back to the
custody of the Minnesota Department of Corrections. The district court denied the habeas
petition, determining that the action was improperly venued because the allegations raised
in the petition related to conditions of confinement and actions by correctional officers in
Illinois, rather than in Minnesota. This appeal follows.
D E C I S I O N
Appellant challenges the district court’s denial of his habeas corpus petition. “A
person imprisoned or otherwise restrained of liberty . . . may apply for a writ of habeas
corpus to obtain relief from imprisonment or restraint.” Minn. Stat. § 589.01 (2016) . A
writ of habeas corpus may also be used to challenge conditions of confinement or to raise
claims involving fundamental constitutional rights or significant restraints on liberty. State
ex rel. Guth v. Fabian , 716 N.W.2d 23, 26 -27 (Minn. App. 2006), review denied (Minn.
Aug. 15, 2006). “On appeal from the denial of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the
district court’s findings are entitled to great weight and they will be sustained if they are
reasonably supported by the evidence.” Id. at 26. The burden of proof rests with the
petitioner. Bedell v. Roy, 853 N.W.2d 827, 829 (Minn. App. 2014), review denied (Minn.

3
Oct. 28, 2014). A district court need not hold a hearing on a habeas corpus petition unless
the petitioner has “alleged sufficient facts to constitute a prima facie case for relief.” Case
v. Pung, 413 N.W.2d 261, 263 (Minn. App. 1987), review denied (Minn. Nov. 24, 1987).
“A person may apply for a writ of habeas corpus by petition addressed to the
supreme court, court of appeals, or to the district court of the county where the petitioner
is detained.” Minn. Stat. § 589.02 (2016) . When a habeas petition “is made to a judge
whose chambers are not located within the county where the prisoner is detained, that judge
shall require proof, by the oath of the applicant or other evidence” demonstrating that venue
is proper. Minn. Stat. § 589.03 (2016). “If the proof required by this section is not
produced, the application must be denied.” Id. Here, it is uncontested that appellant is not
incarcerated in Minnesota. The district court requested additional briefing on whether the
petition was properly filed in Minnesota. After reviewing the submitted materials , the
district court determined that venue was not proper because appellant was not detained in
Minnesota when he filed his petition . Based upon a clear r eading of section 589.03 that
compels the denial of an improperly venued habeas corpus petition, we conclude that the
district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the petition.
Appellant argues that his habeas corpus petition is proper because his transfer to
Illinois was retaliatory. We are not persuaded. A claim for retaliatory transfer requires the
plaintiff to show that a prison official’s desire to retaliate against the prisoner for exercising
a constitutional right was the motivating factor behind the transfer. Goff v. Burton, 91 F.3d
1188, 1191 (8th Cir. 1996). Appellant has not made any such showing here. The Interstate
Corrections Compact authorizes the state to transfer an inmate to “an institution within the

4
territory of another party state [if] necessa ry or desirable in order to provide adequate
quarters and care or an appropriate program of rehabilitation or treatment.” Minn. Stat .
§ 241.29, art. IV(a) (2016) . While a ppellant would prefer to be housed in a Minnesota
prison, it is well -settled that a prisoner does not have a liberty interest in serving his
sentence in any particular state or facility. See Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 225, 96
S. Ct. 2532, 2538 (1976); see also State ex rel. McMaster v. Young, 476 N.W.2d 670, 673
(Minn. App. 1991), review denied (Minn. Dec. 13, 1991). Further, a prisoner does not have
a liberty interest in serving his sen tence in the state in which he wa s convicted. Olim v.
Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 248, 103 S. Ct. 1741, 1747 (1983) (“[A]n interstate prison
transfer . . . does not deprive an inmate of any liberty interest protected by the Due Process
Clause in and of itself.”).
Appellant has not identified any evidence showing that the Minnesota Department
of Corrections violated his constitutional rights.1 See Bedell, 853 N.W.2d at 829 (placing
burden on petitioner to show illegality of detention). Because appellant failed to establish
grounds supporting his habeas petition, we affirm the district court’s denial of appellant’s
habeas petition.
Affirmed.

1 Appellant argues that he was denied due process, but fails to cite to relevant caselaw
supporting his claim. See State v. Manley, 664 N.W.2d 275, 286 (Minn. 2003) (considering
arguments forfeited when they are unsupported by facts in the record and contain no
citation to relevant legal authority).