Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

KIMBLE v. SCHWARTZENEGGER

United States District Court, N.D. California


May 3, 2004.

CHARLES MICHAEL KIMBLE, Petitioner,
v.
ARNOLD SCHWARTZENEGGER, Respondent

The opinion of the court was delivered by: MAXINE CHESNEY, District Judge

ORDER OF TRANSFER

Petitioner, a California prisoner, has filed this pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He challenges a conviction obtained in the Superior Court of Kern County. Venue for a habeas action is proper in either the district of confinement or the district of conviction, 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d), although petitions challenging a conviction are preferably heard in the district of conviction. see Habeas L.R. 2254-3(a); Laue V. Nelson 279 F. Supp. 265, 266 (N.D. Cal. 1968): cf. Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989) (holding district of confinement is proper forum to review execution of sentence). The venue for Kern County, the district of petitioner's conviction, is the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(b).

Accordingly, this case is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a); Habeas L.R. 2254-3(b).

  The Clerk's notice to petitioner to pay the filing fee or file a completed in forma pauperis application is VACATED.

  The Clerk shall close the file and terminate any pending motions on the Court's docket.

  IT IS SO ORDERED.

20040503

© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.