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.

Saunder v. State

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


October 13, 2009

ALLEN DAVID SAUNDER, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

ORDER

Petitioner, a state prisoner confined at Atascadero State Hospital proceeding pro se, has filed a civil action on the form for a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has neither paid any filing fee nor filed a request to proceed in forma pauperis.

In the petition, petitioner states that he is challenging convictions issued in Los Angeles and San Luis Obispo Counties. It also appears from review of the petition that petitioner may be attempting to challenge conditions of his confinement at Atascadero State Hospital, which is located in San Luis Obispo County. Petitioner was not convicted in this district and he is not confined here. For that reason, this court lacks jurisdiction over any habeas corpus challenge to petitioner's conviction. See Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court, 410 U.S. 484 (1973) (jurisdiction over § 2254 petition proper in district of conviction or district of confinement).

Similarly, venue over a civil rights challenge to the conditions of petitioner's confinement does not lie in this district. The federal venue statute requires that a civil action, other than one based on diversity jurisdiction, be brought only in "(1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same State, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated, or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant may be found, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought." 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

Los Angeles County and San Luis Obispo County are both in the Central District of California. Therefore, whether this action is construed as a challenge to petitioner's conviction or to the conditions of his confinement, it should have been filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

Accordingly, in the furtherance of justice, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

20091013

© 1992-2009 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.