Kimble v. People of the State of California
Filing
7
ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE to Eastern District of California. Signed by Judge Nandor J. Vadas on 6/12/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(njvlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/12/2017)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
EUREKA DIVISON
7
8
LARRY CUNNIGHAM KIMBLE,
Case No. 17-cv-2581-NJV (PR)
Petitioner,
9
v.
ORDER OF TRANSFER
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA,
Docket Nos. 2, 6
Respondent.
This is a habeas corpus petition filed pro se by a state prisoner. Petitioner challenges a
14
conviction obtained in the San Joaquin County Superior Court. San Joaquin County is in the
15
venue of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. Petitioner is also
16
incarcerated in the Eastern District of California.
17
Venue for a habeas action is proper in either the district of confinement or the district of
18
conviction, 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d); this district is neither. Because petitions challenging a
19
conviction are preferably heard in the district of conviction, Habeas L.R. 2254-3(a); Laue v.
20
Nelson, 279 F. Supp. 265, 266 (N.D. Cal. 1968), and petitioner was convicted and is incarcerated
21
in the Eastern District, this case is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the
22
Eastern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); Habeas L.R. 2254-3(b). All pending
23
motions are vacated and will be addressed in the Eastern District.
24
25
26
27
28
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 12, 2017
________________________
NANDOR J. VADAS
United States Magistrate Judge
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?