Tran v. Allison

Filing 4

ORDER Transferring Case to the United States District Court for the Central District of California signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 06/30/2011. CASE CLOSED. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JIMIE TRAN,

1:11-cv-00816 MJS (HC)
Petitioner,

12
13

vs.

14

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA

K. ALLISON, Warden,

15

Respondent.
/

16
17
18
19

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a habeas corpus action
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

20

On May 18, 2011, Petitioner filed the instant petition with the Court. (Pet., ECF No. 1.)

21

As the petition only contained notice and a request for extension of time, the Court ordered

22

Petitioner to file an amended Petition. (Order, ECF No. 2.) On June 27, 2011, Petitioner filed

23

an amended petition with the Court. (Am. Pet., ECF No. 3.) The amended petition challenges

24

Petitioner’s 2008 conviction from the Los Angeles County Superior Court.

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of the property that
-1-

1

is the subject of the action is situated, or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant may be

2

found, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought." 28 U.S.C. §

3

1391(b).

4

However, venue for a habeas action is proper in either the district of confinement or the

5

district of conviction. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). The district court for the district wherein such an

6

application is filed in the exercise of its discretion and in furtherance of justice may transfer the

7

application to the other district court for hearing and determination. Id.

8

It is preferable for petitions challenging a conviction or sentence to be heard in the

9

district of conviction while petitions challenging the manner in which the sentence is being

10

executed be heard in the district of confinement. Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th

11

Cir. 1989). In this case, Petitioner is challenging the judgment relating to his conviction which

12

occurred in Los Angeles County, California. As Los Angeles County is located in the Central

13

District of California, all of the material events, records, and witnesses are located in that

14

district. In the interest of justice, the petition will be transferred to the United States District

15

Court for the Central District of California. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a) and 2241(d).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the United

16
17

States District Court for the Central District of California.

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20

Dated:
92b0h

June 30, 2011

Michael J. Seng

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-