Ruchell Cinque Magee v. J. Gastello

Filing 3

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 7/12/2017 TRANSFERRING case to U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. (Henshaw, R) [Transferred from California Eastern on 7/13/2017.]

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RUCHELL CINQUE MAGEE,

12

No. 2:17-cv-1330 AC P

Petitioner,

13

v.

14

J. GASTELLO,

15

ORDER

Respondent.

16
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas

17
18

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and paid the filing fee.
Petitioner appears to challenge the execution of his sentence. The general rule with regard

19
20

to habeas applications is that both the United States District Court in the district where petitioner

21

was convicted and the District Court where petitioner is incarcerated have jurisdiction over the

22

claims. Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court, 410 U.S. 484 (1973). Additionally, “[t]he proper

23

forum to challenge the execution of a sentence is the district where the prisoner is confined.”

24

Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989). Since petitioner was not convicted in this

25

district,1 and is not presently confined here, this court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the

26

application and will transfer the petition to the proper court. He is presently incarcerated at

27
28

1

The underlying conviction occurred in Santa Clara County. ECF No. 1 at 1.
1

1

California Men’s Colony in San Luis Obispo County, which lies in the Central District of

2

California. 28 U.S.C. § 84(c).

3

Accordingly, in the furtherance of justice, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is

4

transferred to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. 28 U.S.C. §

5

2241(d); 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).

6

DATED: July 12, 2017

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2