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)
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?