Bridges v. Castelo
Filing
4
ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE: The Clerk of the Court shall transfer the case to the Central District of California. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 2/9/16. (ig, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/9/2016)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6
MICHAEL BRIDGES,
Case No. 16-cv-00491-DMR (PR)
Petitioner,
7
v.
ORDER OF TRANSFER
8
9
JOSIE GASTELO, Acting Warden,
Respondent.
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
Petitioner, a state prisoner who is incarcerated at the California Men’s Colony (“CMC”),
12
has filed this pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging as a violation of his
13
constitutional rights a 2013 denial of parole by the California Board of Parole Hearings. Dkt. 1.
14
A petition for a writ of habeas corpus made by a person in custody under the judgment and
15
sentence of a state court of a State which contains two or more federal judicial districts may be
16
filed in either the district of confinement or the district of conviction. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d).
17
The district court where the petition is filed, however, may transfer the petition to the other district
18
in the furtherance of justice. See id. Federal courts in California traditionally have chosen to hear
19
petitions challenging a conviction or sentence in the district of conviction. See Dannenberg v.
20
Ingle, 831 F. Supp. 767, 767 (N.D. Cal. 1993); Laue v. Nelson, 279 F. Supp. 265, 266 (N.D. Cal.
21
1968). If the petition is directed to the manner in which a sentence is being executed, e.g., if it
22
involves parole or time credits claims, the district of confinement is the preferable forum. See
23
Habeas L.R. 2254-3(a); Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989).
24
Petitioner was convicted in Los Angeles County and the challenged parole hearing took
25
place in San Luis Obispo County, both of which are located in the Central District of California.
26
See 28 U.S.C. § 84(c). CMC, the place of Petitioner’s confinement, is also located in the Central
27
District of California. Id. Therefore, the Western Division of the United States District Court for
28
the Central District of California has jurisdiction over this matter.
1
Accordingly, this case is TRANSFERRED to the Western Division of the United States
2
District Court for the Central District of California.1 See 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The Clerk of the
3
Court shall transfer the entire file to the Central District of California. Any remaining pending
4
motions are terminated as no longer pending before this court. Dkt. 2.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
5
6
Dated: February 9, 2016
______________________________________
DONNA M. RYU
United States Magistrate Judge
7
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1
28
Venue transfer is a non-dispositive matter and, thus, it falls within the scope of the jurisdiction
of the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).
2
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
4
MICHAEL BRIDGES,
Case No. 4:16-cv-00491-DMR
Plaintiff,
5
v.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
6
7
CASTELO,
Defendant.
8
9
10
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S.
District Court, Northern District of California.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
That on February 9, 2016, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by
placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by
depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery
receptacle located in the Clerk's office.
16
17
18
Michael Bridges ID: H22876
California Men's Colony
P.O. Box 8101
San Luis Obispo, CA 93409-8101
19
20
Dated: February 9, 2016
21
22
Susan Y. Soong
Clerk, United States District Court
23
24
25
26
27
By:________________________
Ivy Lerma Garcia, Deputy Clerk to the
Honorable DONNA M. RYU
28
3
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?