(HC) Parrish v. Gamboa

Filing 5

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Christopher D. Baker on 1/3/2025, CASE TRANSFERRRED to Sacramento Division. (Deputy Clerk TEL)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JEFFREY CRAIG PARRISH, JR.,

12
13

Petitioner,
v.

Case No. 1:24-cv-01598-CDB (HC)
ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE
SACRAMENTO DIVISION
(Doc. 1)

14

MARTIN GAMBOA, Warden,

15

Respondent.

16
17

Petitioner Jeffrey Craig Parrish, Jr. (“Petitioner”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a

18

petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1). Petitioner challenges his

19

December 20, 2019, conviction in the Superior Court of Butte County. (Id.). Butte County is located

20

in the Sacramento Division of the Eastern District of California.

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

he was convicted and sentenced. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). When a habeas petition challenges the

25

petitioner’s conviction or sentence, e.g., a habeas petition brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the

26

district where the petitioner was convicted and sentenced is a more convenient forum because trial court

27

records, witnesses, and other evidence related to the crime and his conviction are usually located in that

28

district. See Braden v. 30th Judicial Cir. Ct. of Ky., 410 U.S. 484, 4998 & n.15 (1973). Thus, California
1

1

courts generally transfer habeas actions challenging state convictions or sentences to the district where

2

the petitioner was convicted and sentenced. See, e.g., Tate v. Unknown, No. 24-cv-756 JLS (LR), 2024

3

WL 2880583, at *1 (S.D. Cal. May 7, 2024) (citing Braden); Gakuba v. Cal. Attorney Gen., No. 22-cv-

4

07698 NC (PR), 2022 WL 17813143 at *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2022); Dannenberg v. Ingle, 831 F. Supp.

5

767, 767 (N.D. Cal. 1993).

6

Here, because Petitioner is challenging his 2019 conviction from Butte County, the better forum

7

for his claims is the division of the district court where he was convicted (the Sacramento Division),

8

particularly because, according to the petition, the events surrounding his conviction occurred within

9

the Sacramento Division of the court. (Doc. 1).

10

Pursuant to Local Rule 120(f), a civil action which has not been commenced in the proper

11

division of a court may, on the court’s own motion, be transferred to the proper division of the court.

12

Therefore, this action will be transferred to the Sacramento Division of the court.

13
14
15
16
17

Conclusion and Order
Accordingly, this action is transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of California sitting in Sacramento.
All future filings shall reference the new Sacramento case number assigned and shall be filed at:
United States District Court
Eastern District of California
501 I Street, Room 4-200
Sacramento, CA 95814

18
19
20
21
22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 3, 2025

___________________

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
2