Favor v. Harris

Filing 2

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE to the Central District of California, Western Division signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 4/20/2015. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRANDON FAVOR, 12 13 14 15 Case No. 1:15-cv-00601-SAB-HC Petitioner, ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION v. KAMALA D. HARRIS, Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 18 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 19 On March 15, 2015, Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus in this 20 Court. (ECF No. 1). Petitioner is challenging the imposition of a life without possibility of 21 parole sentence imposed in 2008 by the Los Angeles County Superior Court. Petitioner alleges 22 ineffective assistance of counsel, a due process violation for lack of evidence, and an equal 23 protection violation. 24 When a prisoner files a state habeas petition in a state that contains two or more federal 25 judicial districts, the petition may be filed in either the judicial district in which the petitioner is 26 presently confined or the judicial district in which he was convicted and sentenced. See 28 27 U.S.C. § 2241(d); Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 442 (2004) (quoting Carbo v. United 28 States, 364 U.S. 611, 618, 81 S. Ct. 338, 5 L. Ed. 2d 329 (1961)). The instant petition attacks a 1 1 judgment of conviction that was entered in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, which is 2 within the jurisdictional boundaries of the United States District Court for the Central District of 3 California, Western Division. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(c)(2). Petitioner is presently confined at 4 Corcoran State Prison, located in Corcoran, California, which is within the jurisdictional bounds 5 of the Eastern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(b). Thus, jurisdiction exists in both the 6 Eastern and Central Districts of California. Petitions challenging convictions or sentences are preferably heard in the district of 7 8 conviction. See Laue v. Nelson, 279 F.Supp. 265, 266 (N.D.Cal. 1968). Petitions challenging 9 execution of sentence are preferably heard in the district where the inmate is confined. See 10 Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989). Section 2241 further states that, rather 11 than dismissing an improperly filed action, a district court, “in the exercise of its discretion and 12 in furtherance of justice[,] may transfer” the habeas petition to another federal district for hearing 13 and determination. Id.; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (court may transfer any civil action “to any 14 other district or division where it might have been brought” for convenience of parties or “in the 15 interest of justice”). Petitioner is challenging his 2008 conviction from a judgment issued by the Los Angeles 16 17 County Superior Court, and therefore, venue is proper in the district of conviction, which is the 18 Central District of California, Western Division. Accordingly, this action will be transferred. Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition is transferred to the 19 20 United States District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division. 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 Dated: April 20, 2015 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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?