IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
July 30, 2009
JESUS GUILLEN, PETITIONER,
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. Beck United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with a request to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
Venue for a habeas action is proper in either the district of confinement or the district of conviction. 28 U.S.C. A. § 2241 (d). However, it is preferable for petitions challenging a conviction or sentence to be heard in the district of conviction while petitions challenging the manner in which the sentence is being executed be heard in the district of confinement. Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989).
In this case, the petitioner is challenging a conviction from Riverside County, which is in the Central District of California; therefore, the petition should have been filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. In the interest of justice, a federal court may transfer a case filed in the wrong district to the correct district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); Starnes v. McGuire, 512 F.2d 918, 932 (D.C. Cir. 1974).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.