Gutierrez v. People of the State of California
ORDER, CASE TRANSFERRED to District of Central District of California signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 12/15/2010. (Sant Agata, S)
(HC)Gutierrez v. People of the State of California
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 11 12 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 13 Respondent. 14 15 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 16 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 17 The federal venue statute requires that a civil action, other than one based on diversity 18 jurisdiction, be brought only in "(1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all 19 defendants reside in the same state, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events 20 or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of the property that is the 21 subject of the action is situated, or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant may be found, if 22 there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought." 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 23 In this case, Petitioner challenges both the validity of his sentence and the execution of his 24 sentence. The proper venue for challenging the validity of his sentence is the district court 25 containing the sentencing court, while the proper venue to challenge the execution of his sentence 26 is the district court containing the prison in which Petitioner is incarcerated. 27 28 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FREDDY GUTIERREZ, Petitioner,
1:10-cv-02194-DLB (HC) ORDER OF TRANSFER
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Although Petitioner has filed in the proper district court to challenge the execution of his sentence, this petition should be heard by the district court containing the sentencing court. Under 28 U.S.C. section 2254, this Court does not have jurisdiction to hear claims relating to the sentencing court where Petitioner was not sentenced in this district. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d); Local Rule 191(g). Additionally, the resolution of Petitioner's claims involving the sentencing court may render his remaining claims moot. Petitioner is challenging a conviction from Los Angeles County, which is in the Central District of California. Therefore, the petition should have been filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. In the interest of justice, a federal court may transfer a case filed in the wrong district to the correct district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); Starnes v. McGuire, 512 F.2d 918, 932 (D.C. Cir.1974). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: ah0l4d
December 15, 2010
/s/ Dennis L. Beck UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?