Morris v. MacDonald

Filing 3

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE: This action is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. The Clerk shall transfer the case forthwith. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 4/14/16. (ig, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/14/2016) (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/14/2016: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (igS, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

RAYMOND CHARLES MORRIS,
Petitioner,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Case No. 16-cv-01736-DMR (PR)
ORDER OF TRANSFER

v.
J. MACDONALD, Warden,
Respondent.

Petitioner, a state prisoner who is incarcerated at the La Palma Correctional Center in

13

Arizona, has filed this pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging a judgment of

14

conviction from the Shasta County Superior Court. Dkt. 1. Petitioner has consented to magistrate

15

judge jurisdiction in this action, which has been assigned to the undersigned Magistrate Judge. Id.

16

at 8. Petitioner has also filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. 2.

17

A petition for a writ of habeas corpus made by a person in custody under the judgment and

18

sentence of a state court of a State which contains two or more federal judicial districts may be

19

filed in either the district of confinement or the district of conviction. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d).

20

The district court where the petition is filed, however, may transfer the petition to the other district

21

in the furtherance of justice. See id. Federal courts in California traditionally have chosen to hear

22

petitions challenging a conviction or sentence in the district of conviction. See Dannenberg v.

23

Ingle, 831 F. Supp. 767, 767 (N.D. Cal. 1993); Laue v. Nelson, 279 F. Supp. 265, 266 (N.D. Cal.

24

1968). If the petition is directed to the manner in which a sentence is being executed, e.g., if it

25

involves parole or time credits claims, the district of confinement is the preferable forum. See

26

Habeas L.R. 2254-3(a); Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989).

27
28

Here, Petitioner challenges a conviction and sentence incurred in the Shasta County
Superior Court, which is within the venue of the Eastern District of California. See 28 U.S.C.

1

§ 84. Because Petitioner is challenging his conviction, venue for the instant habeas action is

2

proper in the district of conviction. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d).

3

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) and Habeas L.R. 2254-3(b), and in the interest of justice,

4

this action is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of

5

California.1 The Clerk shall transfer the case forthwith.

6
7
8
9

All remaining pending motions are TERMINATED on this court’s docket as no longer
pending in this district. Dkt. 2.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 14, 2016

10
DONNA M. RYU
United States Magistrate Judge

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