Miller v. Price

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 8/14/17. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11

MARK MILLER,

12
13
14
15

Case No. 1:17-cv-01055-SAB-HC

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

v.
BRANDON PRICE,
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 Orange County Superior Court. Therefore, venue is proper in the district of conviction, which
6 is the Central District of California. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is
7 transferred to the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10 Dated:

August 14, 2017
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2