The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sheila K. Oberto United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (DOC. 9)
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter has been referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rules 302 and 304. Pending before the Court is the first amended petition (FAP, doc. 9), which was filed on April 25, 2011.
In the initial petition, Petitioner, an inmate of Avenal State Prison, challenged the denial of his parole. However, the claim or claims that presently remain in Petitioner's first amended petition (FAP), filed on April 25, 2011, concern Petitioner's conviction, which was suffered in the Los Angeles Superior Court.
Title 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d) provides as follows which respect to venue, jurisdiction and transfer in a habeas proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254:
Where an application for a writ of habeas corpus is made by a person in custody under the judgment and sentence of a State court of a State which contains two or more Federal judicial districts, the application may be filed in the district court for the district wherein such person is in custody or in the district court for the district within which the State court was held which convicted and sentenced him and each of such district courts shall have concurrent jurisdiction to entertain the application. The district court for the district wherein such application is filed in the exercise of its discretion and in furtherance of justice may transfer the application to the other district court for hearing and determination. Although venue is generally proper in either the district of the prisoner's confinement or the convicting court's location, petitions challenging a conviction preferably are heard in the district of conviction, Laue v. Nelson, 279 F.Supp. 265, 266 (N.D.Cal. 1968); petitions challenging execution of sentence are preferably heard in the district where the inmate is confined, Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989). A court should further consider traditional considerations of venue, such as the convenience of parties and witnesses and the interests of justice. Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484, 495 (1973).
Title 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) provides that a district court of a district in which is filed a case laying venue in the wrong division or district shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or division in which it could have been brought.
In view of the nature of the claim or claims remaining in the FAP, it is concluded that the interests of justice require that the petition be transferred to the district of conviction.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the petition be transferred to the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw ...