In re Byron Wooten

Filing 21

ORDER OF TRANSFER. Signed by Judge Donna M. Ryu on 6/16/14. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/16/2014)

Download PDF
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 BYRON WOOTEN, Petitioner, 5 6 7 HENRY J. MARQUEZ, Respondent. United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER OF TRANSFER v. 8 9 No. C 13-05061 DMR (PR) / On October 30, 2013, Petitioner filed a letter with the Court in the instant case, which was opened as a pro se civil rights action. Dkt. 1. On the same day the action was filed, the Clerk of the Court sent a notice to Petitioner informing him that his action could not go forward until he filed with the Court a civil rights complaint form, completed in full. The Clerk also sent another notice directing Petitioner to either pay the filing fee or file a completed prisoner's in forma pauperis ("IFP") application form. The Clerk sent Petitioner a blank civil rights complaint form and an IFP application form, and informed him that he must return the completed forms within twenty-eight days or his action would be dismissed. The Clerk also notified Plaintiff in writing that this matter had been assigned to the undersigned Magistrate Judge. On November 14, 2013, Petitioner filed a completed civil rights complaint form. Dkt. 7. On January 31, 2014, Petitioner filed a completed IFP application form. Dkt. 12. On February 5, 2014, the Court notified Plaintiff in an Order that his case was being reclassified as a habeas action. Dkt. 13 at 2. The Court noted that it was apparent that he intended to file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus because he was challenging his conviction in Kern County. Id. at 1. However, the Court could not fairly evaluate Petitioner's claims in its present state. Id. at 2. Therefore, the Court directed Petitioner to file amended claims on a habeas corpus petition form within twenty-eight days or his action would be dismissed. Id. Petitioner has since filed a completed habeas corpus petition form, after being given an extension of time to do so. Dkt 20. Petitioner has also consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction in 1 2 this action. Dkt. 5. Federal statute allows "the Supreme Court, any justice thereof, the district courts and any 3 circuit judge" to grant writs of habeas corpus "within their respective jurisdictions." 28 U.S.C. 4 § 2241(a). A federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus made by a person in custody under the 5 judgment and sentence of a state court is properly filed in either the district of confinement or the 6 district of conviction. Id. § 2241(d). Where a case is filed in the wrong venue, the district court has 7 the discretion to transfer it to the proper federal court "in the interest of justice." See 28 U.S.C. 8 § 1406(a). 9 Here, Petitioner challenges a conviction and sentence incurred in the Kern County Superior United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 Court, which is in the venue of the Eastern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 84. Accordingly, 11 that is the proper venue for this action. 12 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) and Habeas L.R. 2254-3(b), and in the interest of justice, the 13 Clerk of the Court is ordered to TRANSFER this action forthwith to the United States District Court 14 for the Eastern District of California. 15 16 17 18 All remaining motions are TERMINATED on this Court's docket as no longer pending in this district. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 16, 2014 DONNA M. RYU United States Magistrate Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 P:\PRO-SE\DMR\HC.13\Wooten5061.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?