Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00465/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00465-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TROY D. WILLIAMS,

Petitioner,

v.

EDMUND G. BROWN,

Respondent.

1:15-cv-00092-SKO (HC) 

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. 

In this case, the petitioner is challenging a sentence imposed pursuant to a conviction from

the Los Angeles County Superior Court, which is in the Central District of California. 

Title 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d) provides with 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

Case 1:15-cv-00465-LJO-MJS Document 3 Filed 01/28/15 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

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 where there has been filed a case laying venue in 

the wrong division or district, a district court shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, 

transfer such a case to any district or division in which it could have been brought.

Here, the relief Petitioner requests is based on, and would affect, the terms of the sentence 

imposed in the convicting court. Although Petitioner was housed within this district at the time 

the petition was filed, to the extent that Petitioner is seeking relief pursuant to § 2254, venue is 

proper in the district of Petitioner’s conviction, namely, the Central District of California.

The Court concludes that it would be in the interest of justice to transfer the petition to the 

district of conviction.

Therefore, the petition should have been filed in the United States District Court for the

Central District of California. 

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.

Dated: January 27, 2015 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00465-LJO-MJS Document 3 Filed 01/28/15 Page 2 of 2