Donald B. Williams v. E. Valenzuela

Filing 2

ORDER Transferring Case To The United States District Court For The Central District Of California (Doc. 1 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 2/4/2015. CASE TRANSFERRED to District of Central California. (Fahrney, E)[Transferred from California Eastern on 2/5/2015.]

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DONALD B. WILLIAMS,
Petitioner,

12
13
14
15
16
17

vs.
E. VALENZUELA,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:15-cv-0155-JLT
ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL
DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a habeas corpus action pursuant to 28

18

U.S.C. § 2254, in which he challenges denial of necessary medical treatments. Petitioner has not paid

19

the $5.00 filing fee or submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis for this action.

20

The federal venue statute requires that a civil action, other than one based on diversity

21

jurisdiction, be brought only in “(1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants

22

reside in the same state, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions

23

giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of the property that is the subject of the action is

24

situated, or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant may be found, if there is no district in which

25

the action may otherwise be brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

26
27
28

In a habeas matter, venue is proper in either the district of conviction or the district of
confinement. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). In this case, petitioner challenges the result of a prison
1

1

disciplinary proceeding which occurred in California Men’s Colony prison located in the Central

2

District of California. Whereas here the petitioner attacks the execution of his sentence, as opposed to

3

an attack on the conviction itself, the proper forum in which to review such a claim is the district of

4

confinement. See Dunn v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989) (stating, in a 28 U.S.C. § 2241

5

action, that "[t]he proper forum to challenge the execution of a sentence is the district where the

6

prisoner is confined."). Petitioner is confined in California Men’s Colony prison located in the Central

7

District of California. Therefore, the petition should have been filed in the United States District

8

Court for the Central District of California. In the interest of justice, a federal court may transfer a

9

case filed in the wrong district to the correct district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); Starnes v. McGuire,

10

512 F.2d 918, 932 (D.C. Cir. 1974).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the United

11
12

States District Court for the Central District of California.

13
14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

February 4, 2015

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2