Favor v. The People of the State of California

Filing 8

ORDER VACATING 6 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION AND TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 6/20/2017. CASE CLOSED. (Lundstrom, T)

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