Yahn v. King

Filing 14

ORDER GRANTING 12 Transfer of Case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 2/20/13. CASE TRANSFERRED to Northern District of California. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

14

ORDER GRANTING TRANSFER OF
CASE TO THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Petitioner,

12
13

1:12-cv-01647 LJO MJS (HC)

MERTON GEORGE YAHN,

v.
AUDREY KING, Warden,

(Doc. 12)
15

Respondent.
/

16
17
18

On July 2, 2012, Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a habeas corpus
action with this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Pet., ECF No. 1.)

19

On October 16, 2012, Respondent was ordered to respond to the Petition, and did so

20

by way of request to transfer the matter to the United States District Court, Northern District

21

of California. (Order, Request to Transfer, ECF Nos. 5, 12.) Petitioner did not respond to

22

Respondent's request to transfer.

23

The request to transfer the petition is GRANTED.

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

is the subject of the action is situated, or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant may be
-1-

1

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

2

1391(b).

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

Cir. 1989). In this case, Respondent correctly notes that Petitioner is challenging his

11

commitment in Lake County, California. As Lake County is located in the Northern District of

12

California, all of the material events, records, and witnesses are located in that district. In the

13

interest of justice, the petition will be transferred to the United States District Court for the

14

Northern District of California. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a) and 2241(d).
ORDER

15

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

16
17

Respondent's motion to transfer the matter to the United States District Court

18

for the Northern District of California is GRANTED.

19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22

Dated:
ci4d6

February 20, 2013

Michael J. Seng

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-