Gomez v. Yates

Filing 5

ORDER transferring action to US District Court for the Central District of CA, Eastern Division. Signed by Judge Dana M. Sabraw on 10/30/06. (cag)

Gomez v. Yates

Doc. 5

Case 3:06-cv-02337-DMS-RBB

Document 5

Filed 10/30/2006

Page 1 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding with a habeas corpus action filed pursuant to 18 28 U.S.C. § 2254 attacking a conviction from the Superior Court of Riverside County, 19 California. Upon reviewing the petition, the Court finds that this case should be transferred in 20 the interest of justice. 21 A petition for writ of habeas corpus may be filed in the United States District Court of 22 either the judicial district in which the petitioner is presently confined or the judicial district in 23 which he was convicted and sentenced. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d); Braden v. 30th Judicial 24 Circuit Court, 410 U.S. 484, 497 (1973). The application in the present matter attacks a 25 conviction in the Superior Court of Riverside County, California, which is within the 26 jurisdictional boundaries of the United States District Court for the Central District, Eastern 27 / / / 28 / / / Petitioner, vs. JAMES YATES, Warden Respondent. ORDER TRANSFERRING ACTION TO UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, EASTERN DIVISION ARTURO PENA GOMEZ, Civil No. 06-2337 DMS (RBB) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\DMS\06cv2337 transfer.wpd, 10306

-1-

06cv2337

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 3:06-cv-02337-DMS-RBB

Document 5

Filed 10/30/2006

Page 2 of 3

1 Division. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(c)(1). Moreover, Petitioner is presently confined at Pleasant 2 Valley State Prison, which is located in Fresno County and is within the jurisdictional 3 boundaries of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. See 4 28 U.S.C. § 84(b). Thus, jurisdiction exists in the Central or Eastern District; and not in the 5 Southern District. 6 Although this Court does not have jurisdiction over the action, "[u]nder a provision of the

7 Federal Courts Improvement Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1631, if a court finds that there is a want of 8 jurisdiction the court shall transfer the action to any other such court in which the action could 9 have been brought `if it is in the interest of justice.'" Miller v. Hambrick, 905 F.2d 259, 262 (9th 10 Cir. 1990) (citing In re McCauley, 814 F.2d 1350, 1351-52 (9th Cir. 1987)). The Ninth Circuit 11 has held that transferring a habeas corpus proceeding to a district with proper jurisdiction will 12 be in the interest of justice because normally dismissal of an action that could be brought 13 elsewhere is "time-consuming and justice-defeating." Miller, 905 F.2d at 262 (quoting 14 Goldlawr, Inc. v. Heiman, 369 U.S. 463, 467 (1962). Therefore, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631, 15 this Court may transfer this proceeding to a district with proper jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 16 § 2241(d). 17 When a habeas petitioner is challenging a state conviction, the district court of the district

18 in which a petitioner was convicted and sentenced is a more convenient forum because of the 19 accessibility of evidence, records and witnesses. Thus, it is generally the practice of the district 20 courts in California to transfer habeas actions challenging a state conviction to the district in 21 which the Petitioner was convicted. Any and all records, witnesses and evidence necessary for 22 the resolution of Petitioner's contentions are more readily available in Riverside County, which 23 is thus a more convenient forum. See Braden, 410 U.S. at 497, 499 n.15 (stating that a court can, 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / ///
K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\DMS\06cv2337 transfer.wpd, 10306

-2-

06cv2337

Case 3:06-cv-02337-DMS-RBB

Document 5

Filed 10/30/2006

Page 3 of 3

1 2 of course, transfer habeas cases to the district of conviction which is ordinarily a more 3 convenient forum); Laue v. Nelson, 279 F. Supp. 265, 266 (N.D. Cal. 1968). 4 Therefore, in the furtherance of justice, IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court

5 transfer this matter to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, 6 Eastern Division. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of 7 this Court serve a copy of this Order upon Petitioner and upon the California Attorney General. 8 9 DATED: October 30, 2006 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 HON. DANA M. SABRAW United States District Judge

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\DMS\06cv2337 transfer.wpd, 10306

-3-

06cv2337