Favor v. Devine, et al.

Filing 2

ORDER TRANSFERRING Case to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 6/13/17. (Marrujo, C)

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. 1:17-cv-00782-SAB-HC Petitioner, ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA v. MAXINE ANDERSON, 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 When a state prisoner files a habeas petition in a state that contains two or more federal 20 judicial districts, the petition may be filed in either the judicial district in which the petitioner is 21 presently confined or the judicial district in which he was convicted and sentenced. See 28 22 U.S.C. § 2241(d); Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 442 (2004) (quoting Carbo v. United 23 States, 364 U.S. 611, 618 (1961)). Petitions challenging the execution of a sentence are 24 preferably heard in the district where the inmate is confined. See Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 25 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989). Petitions challenging convictions or sentences are preferably heard in 26 the district of conviction. See Laue v. Nelson, 279 F. Supp. 265, 266 (N.D. Cal. 1968). Section 27 2241 further states that, rather than dismissing an improperly filed action, a district court, “in the 28 exercise of its discretion and in furtherance of justice[,] may transfer” the habeas petition to 1 1 another federal district for hearing and determination. Id.; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (court 2 may transfer any civil action “to any other district or division where it might have been brought” 3 for convenience of parties or “in the interest of justice”). Here, Petitioner’s claims appear to relate to his conviction and sentence that occurred in 4 5 the Los Angeles County Superior Court. Therefore, venue is proper in the district of conviction, 6 which is the Central District of California. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this 7 action is transferred to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 Dated: June 13, 2017 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 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?