McElroy v. Martel

Filing 3

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. Signed by Judge Vaughn R Walker on 7/24/2009. (Attachments: # 1 proof of service)(cgk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/24/2009)[Transferred from cand on 7/30/2009.]

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Petitioner seeks federal habeas review of the execution of a sentence imposed by the Alameda County superior court, which lies in this judicial district. See 28 USC 84(a). Petitioner is MARVIN McELROY, Petitioner, v MICHAEL MARTEL, Warden, Respondent. / ORDER OF TRANSFER No C-09-2584 VRW (PR) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA incarcerated at Mule Creek State Prison in the County of Amador, which lies in the Eastern District of California. See id 84(b). Venue is proper in a habeas action in either the district of conviction or the district of confinement, id 2241(d); the district of confinement, however, is the preferable forum to review the execution of a sentence. See Habeas L R 2254-3(a); Dunne v Henman, 875 F2d 244, 249 (9th Cir 1989); cf Laue v Nelson, 279 F Supp 265, 266 (ND Cal 1968) (district of conviction preferable forum 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 27 28 to review conviction). Because the County of Amador lies in the Eastern District of California, pursuant to 28 USC 1404(a) and Habeas Local Rule 2254-3(b) and in the interest of justice the court orders this petition TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. The clerk shall transfer this matter and terminate all pending motions as moot. IT IS SO ORDERED. VAUGHN R WALKER United States District Chief Judge G:\PRO-SE\VRW\HC.09\McElroy-09-2584-bph-transfer.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?