(HC) Rosa v. Gamboa

Filing 2

PRISONER NEW CASE DOCUMENTS and ORDER RE CONSENT ISSUED. Consent or Decline due by 12/30/2024. (Attachments: #1 Consent Form) (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TOBY ANTHONY ROSA,

12

Petitioner,

13
14
15

Case No. 1:24-cv-01443-CDB (HC)
ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

v.
(Doc. 1)
MARTIN GAMBOA,
Respondent.

16
17

Petitioner Toby Anthony Rosa is proceeding on his petition for writ of habeas corpus filed

18

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1). To the extent discernable, Petitioner challenges his state

19

conviction entered by the Superior Court of Sonoma County. Id. at 4-5, 7-18. Sonoma County is

20

located within the jurisdiction and venue of the San Francisco Division of the United States

21

District Court for the Northern District of California.

22

When a habeas petition is filed by a person in custody under a state court judgment, and

23

that state contains two or more federal judicial districts—such as California—the petition may be

24

filed in either the judicial district in which the petitioner is presently confined, or the judicial

25

district in which he was convicted and sentenced. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). When a habeas

26

petition challenges the petitioner’s conviction or sentence, e.g., a habeas petition brought pursuant

27

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the district where the petitioner was convicted and sentenced is a more

28

convenient forum because trial court records, witnesses, and other evidence related to the crime
1

1

and his conviction are usually located in that district. See Braden v. 30th Judicial Cir. Ct. of Ky.,

2

410 U.S. 484, 4998 & n.15 (1973). Thus, California courts generally transfer habeas actions

3

challenging state convictions or sentences to the district where the petitioner was convicted and

4

sentenced. See, e.g., Tate v. Unknown, No. 24-cv-756 JLS (LR), 2024 WL 2880583, at *1 (S.D.

5

Cal. May 7, 2024) (citing Braden); Gakuba v. Cal. Attorney Gen., No. 22-cv-07698 NC (PR),

6

2022 WL 17813143 at *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2022); Dannenberg v. Ingle, 831 F. Supp. 767, 767

7

(N.D. Cal. 1993).

8

Thus, the Court finds in its discretion “and in furtherance of justice” the petition should be

9

transferred to the Northern District of California. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a), 2241(d).

10

Conclusion and Order

11

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED:

12

1. The Clerk shall transfer this action to the United States District Court for the Northern

13
14

District of California, San Francisco Division; and
2. All future filings shall reference the new case number assigned and shall be filed at:

15

United States District Court
Northern District of California
San Francisco Division
450 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102

16
17
18
19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 3, 2025

___________________

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2