Moreno v. Holland

Filing 6

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE to the U.S. District Court, Central District of California signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 10/8/2015. CASE CLOSED. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

ANTHONY DIAZ MORENO,

10

Petitioner,

11
12

v.

CASE NO. 1:15-CV-564---SMS (HC)
ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT,
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

K. HOLLAND,

13

Respondent.

14
15
16

Petitioner is a prisoner with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

17

2254. Petitioner is incarcerated at a California Correctional Institution in Tehachapi, California.

18

However, because Petitioner challenges his conviction in this petition, this case will be transferred

19

to the district of conviction, the Central District of California.

20

Venue in a habeas action is proper in either the district of confinement or the district of

21

conviction. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). Petitions challenging execution of sentence are preferably

22

heard in the district where the inmate is confined. See Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th

23

Cir. 1989). Petitions challenging conviction are preferably heard in the district of conviction.

24

Habeas L. R. 2254-3(a) (b). “For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of

25

justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might

26

have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Pursuant to Local Rule 120(f), a civil action which has

27

not been commenced in the proper court, may, on the court’s own motion, be transferred to the

28

proper court.

1

Here, Petitioner alleges that he is being held in violation of the constitution based on

2

ineffective assistance of counsel, newly discovered evidence which may have affected the jury’s

3

verdict, and improper reference by the prosecution to his failure to testify. These alleged errors

4

challenge his conviction. Petitioner was convicted by a jury in the Superior Court of the County of

5

Los Angeles – Eastern District, Pomona. Hence, venue in the Central District of California is

6

preferred.

7
8

Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that this action is transferred to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California.

9
10
11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

October 8, 2015

/s/ Sandra M. Snyder
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2