Chavez v. McDonald

Filing 6

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 8/10/2012, ORDERING that this action is TRANSFERRED to the USDC for the Southern District of California. CASE CLOSED. (Yin, K) [Transferred from California Eastern on 8/10/2012.]

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

EDWIN EDUARDO CHAVEZ,
Petitioner,

11
vs.

12
13

No. 2:12-cv-0240 EFB P

M.D. McDONALD,
Respondent.

14

ORDER
/

15

Petitioner is a state prisoner without counsel seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

16
17

28 U.S.C. § 2254. He seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

18

However, petitioner has commenced this action in the wrong district.

19

Petitioner was convicted in the Riverside County Superior Court of first degree murder.

20

Pet., Dckt. No. 1 at 1. The Riverside County Superior Court is located in the Central District of

21

California. See 28 U.S.C. 84(c). The petition reflects that petitioner is currently incarcerated at

22

Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility, which is located in San Diego County. Dckt. No. at 7.

23

Thus, petition is confined in the Souther District of California. See 28 U.S.C. 84(d). The instant

24

petition challenges the results of a disciplinary decision that occurred while petitioner was

25

incarcerated at Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility.

26

////
1

1

In a habeas action, venue is proper in either the district of confinement or the district of

2

conviction. 28 U.S.C. 2241(d). Petitioner was convicted in the Riverside County Superior

3

Court, but is confined in San Diego County. Thus, the Eastern District is not a proper venue for

4

this action.

5

As the petition challenged a disciplinary action occurring at Richard J. Donovan

6

Correctional Facility, and witnesses and evidence necessary for the resolution of petitioner’s

7

application are more readily available in the county of petitioner’s confinement, the court will

8

transfer this action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. See

9

Rule 12, Rules Governing § 2254 Cases; 28 U.S.C. 1404(a); Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit

10

Court, 410 U.S. 484, 499 n. 15 (1973). The court declines to take action on petitioner’s

11

application to proceed in forma pauperis.

12

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that this action is transferred to the United States District

13

Court for the Southern District of California.

14

DATED: August 10, 2012.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2