Benjamin James Greenspon v. Ndoh

Filing 2

ORDER, CASE TRANSFERRED to District of CA, Central,signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 03/07/2018. CASE CLOSED (Martin-Gill, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BENJAMIN JAMES GREENSPON, 12 13 14 15 1:18-cv-000298-MJS (HC) Petitioner, ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA v. ROSEMARY NDOH, Respondent. 16 17 18 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 2254. 19 The federal venue statute requires that a civil action, other than one based on 20 diversity jurisdiction, be brought only in “(1) a judicial district where any defendant 21 resides, if all defendants reside in the same state, (2) a judicial district in which a 22 substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a 23 substantial part of the property that is the subject of the action is situated, or (3) a judicial 24 district in which any defendant may be found, if there is no district in which the action 25 may otherwise be brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 26 Venue for a habeas action is proper in either the district of confinement or the 27 district of conviction. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). The district court for the district wherein such 28 an application is filed may, in the exercise of its discretion and in furtherance of justice, 1 1 transfer the application to the other district court for hearing and determination. Id. 2 It is preferable for petitions challenging a conviction or sentence to be heard in the 3 district of conviction and for petitions challenging the manner in which the sentence is 4 being executed to be heard in the district of confinement. Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 5 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989). In this case, it appears that Petitioner is challenging a 6 conviction from Santa Barbara County, which is in the Central District of California. See 7 28 U.S.C. § 84. Therefore, the petition should have been filed in the United States 8 District Court for the Central District of California. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a) and 2241(d). 9 Accordingly, in the interests of justice, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter 10 is transferred to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. 28 11 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a) and 2241(d). 12 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 7, 2018 /s/ 15 Michael J. Seng UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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?