Wright v. Muniz

Filing 2

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)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RAYMOND WRIGHT,

12
13
14

1:15-cv-0477-SKO (HC)

Petitioner,
ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA

v.
W.L.MUNIZ,

15

Respondent.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

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
1

1

other district court for hearing and determination.

2

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

3

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

4

district of conviction, Laue v. Nelson, 279 F.Supp. 265, 266 (N.D.Cal.1968); petitions

5

challenging execution of sentence are preferably heard in the district where the inmate is

6

confined, Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir.1989). A court should further consider

7

traditional considerations of venue, such as the convenience of parties and witnesses and the

8

interests of justice. Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484, 495 (1973).

9

In this case, the petitioner is challenging the conduct of the California Department of

10

Corrections and Rehabilitation with respect to calculation of conduct credit. Petitioner is an

11

inmate of the Salinas Valley State Prison, which is located in Monterey County, which in turn is

12

situated within the Northern District of California. Therefore, the petition should have been filed

13

in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

14

In the interest of justice, a federal court may transfer a case filed in the wrong district to

15

the correct district. See 28 U.S.C. ' 1406(a); Starnes v. McGuire, 512 F.2d 918, 932 (D.C. Cir.

16

1974).

17
18
19
20

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.
Dated:

March 30, 2015

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2