Barron v. Harris

Filing 5

ORDER Transferring Case To The Northern District Of California, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 7/2/2015. CASE TRANSFERRED to District of Northern District of California.(Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11
12

1:15-cv-00983 MJS HC
ANTHONY R. BARRON,

13
14

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE
Petitioner, NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

v.

15
16
17

KAMALA HARRIS,
Respondent.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
The federal venue statute requires that a civil action, other than one based on
diversity jurisdiction, be brought only in “(1) a judicial district where any defendant
resides, if all defendants reside in the same state, (2) a judicial district in which a
substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a
substantial part of the property that is the subject of the action is situated, or (3) a
judicial district in which any defendant may be found, if there is no district in which the
action may otherwise be brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

28
1

1

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

2

district of conviction. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). The district court for the district wherein such

3

an application is filed in the exercise of its discretion and in furtherance of justice may

4

transfer the application to the other district court for hearing and determination. Id.

5

It is preferable for petitions challenging a conviction or sentence to be heard in the

6

district of conviction while petitions challenging the manner in which the sentence is

7

being executed be heard in the district of confinement. Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244,

8

249 (9th Cir. 1989). In this case, Petitioner is challenging the manner in which the

9

sentence is being executed. Specifically, Petitioner is challenging the application of a

10

recently enacted California law to his credit earning capacity. Therefore, the petition

11

should have been filed in the district of confinement, the United States District Court for

12

the Northern District of California. In the interest of justice, the petition will be transferred

13

to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. 28 U.S.C. §§

14

1404(a) and 2241(d).

15
16

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

17
18
19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

July 2, 2015

/s/

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2