Cervantes v. Sherman
Filing
3
ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE to the SACRAMENTO Division of the Eastern District of California signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 8/4/2016. (Sant Agata, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
SALVADOR CERVANTES,
12
13
14
15
Case No. 1:16-cv-01132-SAB-HC
Petitioner,
ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE
SACRAMENTO DIVISION OF THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
v.
SHREW SHERMAN,
Respondent.
16
17
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus
18 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has requested to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to
19 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
20
When a state prisoner files a habeas petition in a state that contains two or more federal
21 judicial districts, the petition may be filed in either the judicial district in which the petitioner is
22 presently confined or the judicial district in which he was convicted and sentenced. See 28
23 U.S.C. § 2241(d); Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 442 (2004) (quoting Carbo v. United
24 States, 364 U.S. 611, 618 (1961)). Petitions challenging the execution of a sentence are
25 preferably heard in the district where the inmate is confined. See Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d
26 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989). Petitions challenging convictions or sentences are preferably heard in
27 the district of conviction. See Laue v. Nelson, 279 F. Supp. 265, 266 (N.D. Cal. 1968). Section
28 2241 further states that, rather than dismissing an improperly filed action, a district court, “in the
1
1 exercise of its discretion and in furtherance of justice[,] may transfer” the habeas petition to
2 another federal district for hearing and determination. Id.; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (court
3 may transfer any civil action “to any other district or division where it might have been brought”
4 for convenience of parties or “in the interest of justice”).
Here, Petitioner’s claims relate to his conviction and sentence that occurred in the Placer
5
6 County Superior Court, which is part of the Sacramento Division of the United States District
7 Court for the Eastern District of California. See Local Rule 120(d). Therefore, venue is proper in
8 the Sacramento Division. Pursuant to Local Rule 120(f), a civil action which has not been
9 commenced in the proper court, may, on the court’s own motion, be transferred to the proper
10 venue within the District. Therefore, this action will be transferred to the Sacramento Division.
11 This Court has not ruled on Petitioner’s request to proceed in forma pauperis.
12
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
13
1. This action is transferred to the Sacramento Division of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of California; and
14
2. All future filings shall reference the new Sacramento case number assigned and shall
15
be filed at:
16
17
United States District Court
Eastern District of California
501 “I” Street, Suite 4-200
Sacramento, CA 95814
18
19
20
21
IT IS SO ORDERED.
22 Dated:
August 4, 2016
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
23
24
25
26
27
28
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?