Robinson v. Kernan

Filing 10

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 4/6/09 ORDERING that this matter is TRANSFERRED to U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Original file, certified copy of transfer order, and docket sheet sent. CASE CLOSED. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

Download PDF
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. SCOTT KERNAN, 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. He alleges that the state court erred in imposing an elevated upper-term sentence, in violation of his constitutional rights. See Pet. at 6-7. Petitioner is incarcerated at Mule Creek State Prison, in Ione, California, which is located in the Eastern District of California. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced in the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, California, which lies in the Central District of California. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C 2241(d), courts in both the district of conviction and the district of confinement have concurrent jurisdiction over applications for habeas corpus filed by state prisoners. However, habeas petitions that challenge a state court conviction or sentence are 1 ORDER DANIEL MATHEW ROBINSON, Petitioner, No. CIV S-08-1741 KJM P IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 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 best heard in the federal district court where the venue of the sentencing state court lies. See In re Cross, 1995 WL 715820 (N.D.Cal.) In this case, the venue of the sentencing court is in the Central District of California. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. 28 U.S.C. 2241(d); 28 U.S.C. 1406(a). DATED: April 6, 2009. 4 robi1741.108.wpd 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?