(HC) Johnson v. On Habeas Corpus

Filing 5

ORDER, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 10/15/2020. CASE TRANSFERRRED to SACRAMENTO Division. New Case Number 2:20-cv-2060 GGH (HC). Old Case Number 1:20-cv-1453 SKO (HC). (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

BYRON JOHNSON,

12
13
14
15
16

No. 1:20-cv-01453-SKO (HC)

Petitioner,
v.
U.S.D.C. EASTERN DIST. OF CA.,
FRESNO,

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE
SACRAMENTO DIVISION OF THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Respondent.

17
18

Petitioner Byron Johnson is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of

19

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner states he was sentenced in 1986 in the

20

Los Angeles County Superior Court to a term of 29 years and 4 months. (Doc. 1 at 4.) He states

21

he was also sentenced in 1994 in this Court to a federal term of 4 years to be served consecutively

22

to the state term. (Doc. 1 at 4.) However, Petitioner is not challenging the imposition of either

23

sentence. He instead challenges the manner in which his sentences are being executed.

24

Petitioner claims he completed his state sentence in March of 2016 and has been held in

25

state custody since then. (Doc. 1 at 4.) Because his 4-year federal sentence was to run

26

consecutively to his state sentence and he has been held in custody for over 4 years beyond

27

completion of his state sentence, he claims he has completed the consecutive federal term and

28

should be released from custody. (Doc. 1 at 4-5.) He states the California Department of
1

1

Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) “still ha[s] an active Federal warrant hold on [him] and

2

will not release [him]” even though he has completed the federal sentence. (Doc. 1 at 5.) He asks

3

the Court to “contact the [CDCR] and have them lift [the] Federal custody hold.” (Doc. 1 at 5.)

4
5

DISCUSSION
A habeas petition may be filed in the United States District Court for either the judicial

6

district in which the petitioner is presently confined or the judicial district in which he was

7

convicted and sentenced. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d); Braden v. 30th Judicial District Court, 410

8

U.S. 484, 497, 93 S. Ct. 1123, 1131 (1973). Petitioner was convicted and sentenced on his state

9

conviction in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, which is located in the Central District. He

10

was convicted and sentenced on his federal conviction in the Fresno Division of the Eastern

11

District. He is confined at California Medical Facility, Vacaville (“CMF”). (Doc. 1 at 1); CDCR

12

Inmate Locator, https://inmatelocator.cdcr.ca.gov/. CMF is in the Sacramento Division of the

13

Eastern District of California. See CDCR Facility Locator, https://www.cdcr.ca.gov/facility-

14

locator/cmf/ (stating CMF is located in Solano County); 28 U.S.C. § 84(b) (stating that Solano

15

County is in the Eastern District of California).

16

In general, when a habeas petitioner is challenging his underlying sentence or conviction,

17

the judicial district in which the petitioner was convicted and sentenced is the preferred forum

18

because of the accessibility of evidence, records, and witnesses in that forum. See Laue v. Nelson,

19

279 F. Supp. 265, 266 (N.D. Cal. 1968). Here, Petitioner is challenging the manner in which his

20

sentence is being executed. Because Petitioner is confined in Solano County and Solano County

21

lies in the Sacramento Division of the Eastern District, the Sacramento Division is the preferable

22

forum to consider the petition. See Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989) (“The

23

proper forum to challenge the execution of a sentence is the district court where the prisoner is

24

confined.”); Bell v. California, No. 17-01023, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123722 at *2 (E.D. Cal.

25

Aug. 3, 2017) (“It is preferable for petitions challenging a conviction or sentence to be heard in

26

the district of conviction and for petitions challenging the manner in which the sentence is being

27

executed to be heard in the district of confinement.”); Local Rule 120(d) (stating civil

28

proceedings arising in Solano County shall be commenced in the Sacramento Division of the
2

1

Eastern District).

2

CONCLUSION

3

For these reasons, the Court finds that transferring this action to the Sacramento Division

4

of the Eastern District of California is in the interests of justice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a)

5

(authorizing federal court to transfer a case to the appropriate district court in the interests of

6

justice).

7
8

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court transfer this case to the
Sacramento Division of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California.

9
10
11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

October 15, 2020

/s/

Sheila K. Oberto

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

.