Pumyethp v. Lockyer
ORDER signed by Judge Dale A. Drozd on 6/5/06 ORDERING this case be TRANSFERRED to District of Central District of CA. Transmittal letter, certified copy of transfer order, and docket sheet sent. CASE CLOSED. (Carlos, K)
(HC) Pumyethp v. Lockyer
Page 1 of 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 vs. BILL LOCKYER, Respondent. / Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has paid the $5.00 filing fee. Courts in the district of conviction and in the district of confinement have concurrent jurisdiction over an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by a state prisoner. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). In the present case, petitioner is confined in the Fenner Canyon Conservation Camp in Los Angeles County. Petitioner is attacking a judgment of conviction entered in the San Bernardino County Superior Court on October 25, 2004. The judicial district for the Central District of California includes both Los Angeles County and San Bernardino County. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(c). Because petitioner was not convicted in the Eastern District of California and is not confined in the Eastern District of California, this court cannot entertain his habeas petition. 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SOMBAT RICK PUMYETHP, Petitioner, No. CIV S-06-1154 GEB DAD P
Page 2 of 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
The district court in which a case has been wrongly filed may, if it is in the interest of justice, transfer the case to any district in which the case could have been brought. 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). In the furtherance of justice, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is transferred to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. DATED: June 5, 2006.
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?