West v. On Habeas Corpus
Filing
3
ORDER Transferring Case to the United States District Court for the Central District of California signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 03/21/2013. (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
JIMMIE WEST,
Petitioner,
12
13
14
1:13-cv-00384 MJS (HC)
ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA
v.
ON HABEAS CORPUS,
Respondent.
15
/
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
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
22
defendants reside in the same state, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the
23
events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of the property that
24
is the subject of the action is situated, or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant may be
25
found, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought.” 28 U.S.C. §
26
1391(b).
27
Venue for a habeas action is proper in either the district of confinement or the district
28
of conviction. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). The district court for the district wherein such an
-1-
1
application is filed in the exercise of its discretion and in furtherance of justice may transfer the
2
application to the other district court for hearing and determination. Id.
3
It is preferable for petitions challenging a conviction or sentence to be heard in the
4
district of conviction while petitions challenging the manner in which the sentence is being
5
executed be heard in the district of confinement. Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th
6
Cir. 1989). In this case, the petitioner is challenging a conviction from Los Angeles County,
7
which is in the Central District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(b). Therefore, the petition
8
should have been filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
9
In the interest of justice, the petition will be transferred to the United States District Court for
10
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
11
12
States District Court for the Central District of California.
13
14
IT IS SO ORDERED.
15
Dated:
92b0h
March 21, 2013
Michael J. Seng
/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
16
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?