Jurisdiction and Venue. Prisoners may file § 2254 petitions in district courts either in districts in which they are incarcerated or in which they were convicted and sentenced. Transferring a prisoner without court authorization does not divest a court of appeals of jurisdiction. A petition may be transferred between courts of proper jurisdiction in “furtherance of justice” at the discretion of the district court in which the petition is filed. Prisoners in the District of Columbia are treated differently and must first bring post-conviction claims before the District of Columbia courts that imposed the sentences.

Deference to State Courts. A state court's determination of a factual issue is presumed correct and may be rebutted only by clear and convincing evidence. The Supreme Court has presumed state courts' factual findings to be correct on issues of juror exclusion for cause, juror partiality, witness identification, competency to stand trial, competency to waive post- conviction proceedings, culpability, and validity of peremptory challenges. The presumption of correctness does not apply to “questions of law” or “mixed question of law and fact.” For example, although the presumption of correctness does apply to state court findings of fact underlying the voluntariness of a defendant's statements or waiver of rights, it does not apply to ultimate conclusions of law regarding the voluntariness of those statements or waivers. Similarly, although the presumption of correctness applies to state court findings of fact underlying an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, it does not apply to ultimate conclusions of law regarding the ineffective assistance. Under AEDPA, state court determinations of law and mixed questions of law and fact are subject to the deferential standards of review of § 2254(d).