Cappel v. Rackley
ORDER, CASE TRANSFERRRED to Sacramento Division, signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 06/14/17. New Case Number 2:17-cv-1245 AC (HC). Old Case Number 1:17-cv-784 EPG (HC). (Martin-Gill, S)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
TAMMY ANN CAPPEL,
Case No. 1:17-cv-00784-EPG-HC
ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE
SACRAMENTO DIVISION OF THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus.
18 When a state prisoner files a habeas petition in a state that contains two or more federal judicial
19 districts, the petition may be filed in either the judicial district in which the petitioner is presently
20 confined or the judicial district in which he was convicted and sentenced. See 28 U.S.C. §
21 2241(d); Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 442 (2004) (quoting Carbo v. United States, 364
22 U.S. 611, 618, 81 S. Ct. 338, 5 L. Ed. 2d 329 (1961)). Petitions challenging the execution of a
23 sentence are preferably heard in the district where the inmate is confined. See Dunne v. Henman,
24 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989). Petitions challenging convictions or sentences are preferably
25 heard in the district of conviction. See Laue v. Nelson, 279 F. Supp. 265, 266 (N.D. Cal. 1968).
26 Section 2241 further states that, rather than dismissing an improperly filed action, a district court,
27 “in the exercise of its discretion and in furtherance of justice[,] may transfer” the habeas petition
28 to another federal district for hearing and determination. Id.; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (court
1 may transfer any civil action “to any other district or division where it might have been brought”
2 for convenience of parties or “in the interest of justice”).
The instant petition attacks a disciplinary proceeding and the subsequent appeals process,
4 which amounts to a challenge to the execution of Petitioner’s sentence. (ECF No. 1 at 2).
5 Petitioner is currently incarcerated at Folsom State Prison in Sacramento County, which is part
6 of the Sacramento Division of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
7 California. Therefore, venue is proper in the Sacramento Division.
Pursuant to Local Rule 120(f), a civil action which has not been commenced in the proper
9 court may, on the court’s own motion, be transferred to the proper court. Therefore, this action
10 will be transferred to the Sacramento Division.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. This action is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Eastern
13 District of California sitting in Sacramento; and
2. All future filings shall reference the new Sacramento case number assigned and shall
15 be filed at:
United States District Court
Eastern District of California
501 “I” Street, Suite 4-200
Sacramento, CA 95814
20 IT IS SO ORDERED.
June 14, 2017
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?