Starr v. State of California
Filing
4
ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE to SACRAMENTO DIVISION, signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 2/22/2012. New Case Number 2:12-cv-00457-KJN (HC). Old Case Number 1:12-cv-00063-DLB (HC). (Jessen, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
ROBIN GILLEN STARR,
10
1:12-cv-00063-DLB (HC)
Petitioner,
ORDER OF TRANSFER
11
v.
12
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
13
Respondent.
14
/
15
Petitioner is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
16
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 is challenging the constitutionality of his conviction. The proper
24
venue for challenging the validity of his sentence is the district court containing the sentencing
25
court, while the proper venue to challenge the execution of his sentence is the district court
26
containing the prison in which Petitioner is incarcerated.
27
28
1
1
Although Petitioner has filed in the proper district court to challenge the execution of his
2
sentence, this petition should be heard by the district court containing the sentencing court.
3
Under 28 U.S.C. section 2254, this Court does not have jurisdiction to hear claims relating to the
4
sentencing court where Petitioner was not sentenced in this district. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d);
5
Local Rule 191(g). Additionally, the resolution of Petitioner’s claims involving the sentencing
6
court may render his remaining claims moot.
7
Petitioner is challenging a conviction from Yolo County, which is in the Eastern District of
8
California, Sacramento Division. Therefore, the petition should have been filed in the United
9
States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division. In the interest of
10
justice, a federal court may transfer a case filed in the wrong district to the correct district. See
11
28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); Starnes v. McGuire, 512 F.2d 918, 932 (D.C. Cir.1974).
12
13
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division.
14
15
16
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
ah0l4d
February 22, 2012
/s/ Dennis L. Beck
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?