Williams v. Brown

Filing 3

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE to the Central District of California signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 1/27/2015. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TROY D. WILLIAMS,

12

Petitioner,

13
14

1:15-cv-00092-SKO (HC)
ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

v.
EDMUND G. BROWN,

15

Respondent.

16
17

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a habeas corpus action pursuant to

18

28 U.S.C. ' 2254, together with a request to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

19

' 1915.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

In this case, the petitioner is challenging a sentence imposed pursuant to a conviction from
the Los Angeles County Superior Court, which is in the Central District of California.
Title 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d) provides with respect to venue, jurisdiction, and transfer in a
habeas proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254:
Where an application for a writ of habeas corpus is made
by a person in custody under the judgment and sentence
of a State court of a State which contains two or more
Federal judicial districts, the application may be filed
in the district court for the district wherein such person
is in custody or in the district court for the district
within which the State court was held which convicted and
sentenced him and each of such district courts shall have
1

1

concurrent jurisdiction to entertain the application. The
district court for the district wherein such application
is filed in the exercise of its discretion and in furtherance
of justice may transfer the application to the other
district court for hearing and determination.

2
3
4

Although venue is generally proper in either the district of the prisoner’s confinement or

5

the convicting court’s location, petitions challenging a conviction preferably are heard in the

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

district of conviction, Laue v. Nelson, 279 F.Supp. 265, 266 (N.D.Cal.1968); petitions
challenging execution of sentence are preferably heard in the district where the inmate is
confined, Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989). A court should further consider
traditional considerations of venue, such as the convenience of parties and witnesses and the
interests of justice. Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484, 495 (1973).
Title 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) provides that where there has been filed a case laying venue in
the wrong division or district, a district court shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice,
transfer such a case to any district or division in which it could have been brought.
Here, the relief Petitioner requests is based on, and would affect, the terms of the sentence
imposed in the convicting court. Although Petitioner was housed within this district at the time
the petition was filed, to the extent that Petitioner is seeking relief pursuant to § 2254, venue is
proper in the district of Petitioner’s conviction, namely, the Central District of California.
The Court concludes that it would be in the interest of justice to transfer the petition to the
district of conviction.
Therefore, the petition should have been filed in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the United
States District Court for the Central District of California.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 27, 2015

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26
27
28
2