Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Buy This Entire Record For
CLEVELAND v. KANE
September 19, 2005.
PAUL KIP CLEVELAND, Petitioner,
A.P. KANE, Respondent.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: MAXINE CHESNEY, District Judge
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO TRANSFER
Petitioner, a California prisoner incarcerated at the
California Training Facility, Soledad,*fn1 and proceeding
pro se, filed the above-titled petition for a writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In the petition, he claims
that his constitutional rights are being violated by the state
court's denial of his request for a transcript he assertedly
needs in order to pursue a claim in state habeas proceedings,
wherein he alleges that restitution deductions from his prison
salary violate his plea agreement. Respondent has filed a motion
to transfer the case to the Central District of California on the
ground that petitioner's conviction was obtained in that
A petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by a person in
custody under the judgment and sentence of a state court of a
state that contains two or more federal judicial districts may be
filed in either the district of confinement or the district of
conviction. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). Both such districts have
concurrent jurisdiction to entertain the petition; however, the
district court for the district in which the petition is filed
may transfer the petition to the other district in the
furtherance of justice. See id. Federal courts in California
traditionally have chosen to hear petitions challenging a conviction or
sentence in the district of conviction, which, in this instance,
is the Central District of California. See Dannenberg v.
Ingle, 831 F. Supp. 767, 767 (N.D. Cal. 1993); Laue v. Nelson,
279 F. Supp. 265, 266 (N.D. Cal. 1968).
As noted, petitioner is confined in the Northern District, but
was convicted in the Central District. Although the assertedly
improper garnishment of wages is alleged to have occurred in this
district, the petition does not challenge the garnishment itself.
Rather, the petition challenges the state trial court's rejection
of petitioner's motion for a transcript, and, as noted, that
court is located in the Central District. Contrary to
petitioner's opposition to the motion, it is the terms of his
conviction that are at issue in this case. The petition states:
Claim One: "Petitioner has been illegally denied
his Constitutional Right to a copy of the
transcripts of his court proceedings, those
transcripts are required to facilitate the
successful prosecution of a writ of Habeas Corpus
challenging the terms of his plea bargain.
. . .
Claim Two: Petitioner has been denied due process
when the lower courts summarily denied his motion
and petition for a writ of Habeas Corpus Without
stating reason(s) for the denial[.]
(See Petition, filed May 27, 2005, at 5 (emphasis added).) The
above-highlighted language demonstrates that petitioner's
complaint is with the state courts located in the Central
District, and not with the prison officials located in this
Accordingly, respondent's motion to transfer is GRANTED, and
the above-titled action is hereby TRANSFERRED to the United
States District Court for the Central District of California.
This order terminates Docket No. 3.
The Clerk shall close the file on the Northern District docket.
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw ...
Buy This Entire Record For