Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00022/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00022-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRIAN MITCHELL HUMASON, 1:08-cv-00022-AWI-TAG HC

Petitioner, ORDER OF TRANSFER 

vs.

JAMES E. TILTON, 

Respondent.

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a habeas corpus action pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

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 the 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).

Moreover, 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d), provides that where an application for a writ of habeas

corpus is made by a person under judgment of a state court in a State with more than one federal

judicial district, “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

Case 1:08-cv-00022-AWI-TAG Document 8 Filed 02/07/08 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

entertain the application.” The statute further provides that “[t]he district court for the district

wherein such an 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.” 28 U.S.C.

§2241(d). 

It is a long-standing policy of the judicial districts in California that, although the district of

confinement and the district in which the conviction was obtained may both have concurrent habeas

jurisdiction, when a petitioner is challenging the fact of his conviction or sentence, the jurisdiction of

the judgment court is the appropriate venue, while the confinement jurisdiction is the appropriate

venue for a petitioner challenging the execution of his sentence. This is a practical rule designed for

the convenience of potential witnesses and for better access to evidence.

Petitioner is confined within the jurisdiction of this Court. However, Petitioner is

challenging a conviction from Ventura 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.

Dated: February 6, 2008 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:08-cv-00022-AWI-TAG Document 8 Filed 02/07/08 Page 2 of 2