Tovar v. Rackley

Filing 7

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE to the Western Division of the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The Clerk shall transfer the case forthwith. ***Civil Case Terminated. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 11/8/17. (ig, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/8/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 VICTOR TOVAR, Petitioner, 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 Case No. 17-cv-05319-DMR (PR) ORDER OF TRANSFER v. R. RACKLEY, Warden, Respondent. Petitioner, a state prisoner, has filed this pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus 14 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging the validity of his conviction obtained in the Santa 15 Barbara County Superior Court. Dkt. 1. He has paid the full filing fee. 16 On September 13, 2017, the Clerk of the Court informed Petitioner that this action has 17 been assigned to the undersigned Magistrate Judge. Dkt. 4. On October 12, 2017, Petitioner 18 consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction. Dkt. 6. 19 A petition for a writ of habeas corpus made by a person in custody under the judgment and 20 sentence of a state court of a State which contains two or more federal judicial districts may be 21 filed in either the district of confinement or the district of conviction. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). 22 The district court where the petition is filed, however, may transfer the petition to the other district 23 in the furtherance of justice. See id. Federal courts in California traditionally have chosen to hear 24 petitions challenging a conviction or sentence in the district of conviction. See Dannenberg v. 25 Ingle, 831 F. Supp. 767, 767 (N.D. Cal. 1993); Laue v. Nelson, 279 F. Supp. 265, 266 (N.D. Cal. 26 1968). If the petition is directed to the manner in which a sentence is being executed, e.g., if it 27 involves parole or time credits claims, the district of confinement is the preferable forum. See 28 Habeas L.R. 2254-3(a); Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989). 1 Here, Petitioner challenges a conviction and sentence incurred in the Santa Barbara County 2 Superior Court, which is within the venue of the Western Division of the Central District of 3 California. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(c). Therefore, the Western Division of the United States District 4 Court for the Central District of California has jurisdiction over this matter. 5 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) and Habeas L.R. 2254-3(b), and in the interest of justice, 6 this action is TRANSFERRED to the Western Division of the United States District Court for the 7 Central District of California. The Clerk shall transfer the case forthwith. 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 All remaining pending motions are TERMINATED on this court’s docket as no longer pending in this district. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 8, 2017 12 13 DONNA M. RYU United States Magistrate Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 VICTOR TOVAR, Case No. 4:17-cv-05319-DMR Plaintiff, 5 v. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 6 7 R. RACKLEY, 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 November 8, 2017, 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 Victor Tovar ID: AF4814 Folsom State Prison P.O. Box 715071 Represa, CA 95671 19 20 Dated: November 8, 2017 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?