Campbell v. Clay

Filing 23

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE to the Eastern District of California. Signed by Judge Ronald M. Whyte on 7/30/10. (jg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/2/2010)

Download PDF
Campbell v. Clay Doc. 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MAURICE EDWARD CAMPBELL, Petitioner, v. I.D. CLAY, Warden, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. C 09-2378 RMW (PR) ORDER OF TRANSFER *E-FILED - 8/2/10* Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. Petitioner seeks habeas relief from the execution of his sentence. At the time petitioner filed this petition, he was in custody at the Sierra Conservation Center in Tuolumne County, which lies in the Eastern District of California. Venue for a habeas action is proper in either the district of confinement or the district of conviction, 28 U.S.C. 2241(d); however, petitions challenging the manner in which a sentence is being executed are preferably heard in the district of confinement. See Habeas L.R. 22543(b)(1); Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989). Here, the Eastern District of California was the district of confinement. Accordingly, this case is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, the district of petitioner's confinement when he filed this petition. See 28 U.S.C. 1404(a); Habeas L.R. 2254-3(b)(1). The clerk shall terminate all pending Order of Transfer P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Rmw\HC.09\Campbell378trans.wpd Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 motions from this court's docket and transfer the entire file to the Eastern District of California. IT IS SO ORDERED. 7/30/10 DATED: _______________ RONALD M. WHYTE United States District Judge Order of Transfer P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Rmw\HC.09\Campbell378trans.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?