United States District Court, N.D. California
May 3, 2004.
CHARLES MICHAEL KIMBLE, Petitioner,
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
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.