Dionne v. People of the State of California

Filing 3

ORDER of TRANSFER, CASE TRANSFERRRED to SACRAMENTO Division, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 12/14/10: New Case Number 2:10-cv-03362 DAD (HC). Old Case Number 1:10-cv-02206 JLT (HC). (Hellings, J)

Download PDF
(HC) Dionne v. People of the State of California Doc. 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 18 U.S.C. 2254, in the Fresno Division of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of 19 California. 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 24 is situated, or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant may be found, if there is no district in 25 which the action may otherwise be brought." 28 U.S.C. 1391(b). 26 In a habeas matter, venue is proper in either the district of conviction or the district of 27 confinement. 28 U.S.C. 2241(d). Where a petitioner attacks the execution of his sentence, the 28 vs. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent. / JEREMY DIONNE, Petitioner, ORDER OF TRANSFER 1:10-cv-02206-JLT HC IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 proper forum in which to review such a claim is the district of confinement. See Dunn v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989)(stating, in a 28 U.S.C. 2241 action, that "[t]he proper forum to challenge the execution of a sentence is the district where the prisoner is confined.") In this case, Petitioner is challenging a conviction from Placer County, which is located in the Sacramento Division of the Eastern District of California. Because the matter should be addressed in the forum where Petitioner was convicted, the petition should have been filed in the Sacramento Division of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. Pursuant to Local Rule 120(f), a civil action which has not been commenced in the proper division of a court may, on the court's own motion, be transferred to the proper division of the court. Therefore, this action will be transferred to the Sacramento Division of this Court. Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. This action is transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California sitting in Sacramento; and, 2. All future filings shall reference the new Sacramento case number assigned and shall be filed at: United States District Court Eastern District of California 501 "I" Street, Suite 4-200 Sacramento, CA 95814 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dated: December 14, 2010 9j7khi /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 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?