Favor v. Vasquez

Filing 2

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE to the United States District Court for the Central District of California signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 11/29/2016. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

BRANDON ALEXANDER FAVOR,

12
13
14
15

1:16-cv-01791-MJS (HC)

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

v.
PAT L. VASQUEZ,
Respondent.

16
17
18

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a habeas corpus action
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 2254.

19

The federal venue statute requires that a civil action, other than one based on

20

diversity jurisdiction, be brought only in “(1) a judicial district where any defendant

21

resides, if all defendants reside in the same state, (2) a judicial district in which a

22

substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a

23

substantial part of the property that is the subject of the action is situated, or (3) a

24

judicial district in which any defendant may be found, if there is no district in which the

25

action may otherwise be brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

26

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

27

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

28

an application is filed in the exercise of its discretion and in furtherance of justice may
1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

249 (9th Cir. 1989). In this case, it appears that Petitioner is challenging a conviction

6

from Los Angeles County, which is in the Central District of California. See 28 U.S.C. §

7

84. Therefore, the petition should have been filed in the United States District Court for

8

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

9

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

10
11
12

1404(a) and 2241(d).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the
United States District Court for the Central District of California.

13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

November 29, 2016

/s/

16

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2