Favor v. The People of the State of California

Filing 8


Download PDF
Case 1:16-cv-01912-DAD-EPG Document 8 Filed 06/21/17 Page 1 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRANDON FAVOR, 12 Petitioner, 13 14 15 Case No. 1:16-cv-01912-DAD-EPG-HC ORDER VACATING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION v. ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 16 Respondent. 17 18 On December 23, 2016, Brandon Favor filed what purported to be a petition for writ of 19 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on behalf of another inmate, Kevin Moore. (ECF 20 No. 1). On May 18, 2017, the undersigned issued findings and recommendation recommending 21 that the petition be dismissed. (ECF No. 6). The findings and recommendation were served on 22 Mr. Favor with notice provided that any objections were to be filed within thirty (30) days of the 23 date of service of the order. In lieu of objections, Mr. Favor filed an amended petition for writ of 24 habeas corpus challenging his 2008 convictions in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. (ECF 25 No. 7). 26 When a prisoner files a state habeas petition in a state that contains two or more federal 27 judicial districts, the petition may be filed in either the judicial district in which the petitioner is 28 presently confined or the judicial district in which he was convicted and sentenced. See 28 1 Case 1:16-cv-01912-DAD-EPG Document 8 Filed 06/21/17 Page 2 of 2 1 U.S.C. § 2241(d); Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 442 (2004) (quoting Carbo v. United 2 States, 364 U.S. 611, 618 (1961)). Petitions challenging the execution of a sentence are 3 preferably heard in the district where the inmate is confined. See Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 4 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989). Petitions challenging convictions or sentences are preferably heard in 5 the district of conviction. See Laue v. Nelson, 279 F. Supp. 265, 266 (N.D. Cal. 1968). Section 6 2241 further states that, rather than dismissing an improperly filed action, a district court, “in the 7 exercise of its discretion and in furtherance of justice[,] may transfer” the habeas petition to 8 another federal district for hearing and determination. Id.; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (court 9 may transfer any civil action “to any other district or division where it might have been brought” 10 for convenience of parties or “in the interest of justice”). 11 Here, Petitioner’s claims relate to his conviction and sentence that occurred in Los 12 Angeles County Superior Court, and therefore, venue is proper in the district of conviction, 13 which is the Central District of California. Therefore, this action will be transferred. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The findings and recommendation issued on May 18, 2017 (ECF No. 6) is VACATED; and 2. This action is transferred to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 20, 2017 /s/ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 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?