Wright v. Muniz
ORDER Transferring Case To The United States District Court For The Northern District Of California, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 3/30/2015. CASE TRANSFERRED to District of Northern District of California.(Fahrney, E)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a habeas corpus action pursuant to
28 U.S.C. ' 2254.
Title 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d) provides as follows which 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 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.
Although venue is generally proper in either the district of the prisoner’s confinement or
the convicting court’s location, petitions challenging a conviction preferably are heard in the
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).
In this case, the petitioner is challenging the conduct of the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation with respect to calculation of conduct credit. Petitioner is an
inmate of the Salinas Valley State Prison, which is located in Monterey County, which in turn is
situated within the Northern District of California. Therefore, the petition should have been filed
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
In the interest of justice, a federal court may transfer a case filed in the wrong district to
the correct district. See 28 U.S.C. ' 1406(a); Starnes v. McGuire, 512 F.2d 918, 932 (D.C. Cir.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
March 30, 2015
/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?