Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00155/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00155-0/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2254, in which he challenges denial of necessary medical treatments. Petitioner has not paid 

the $5.00 filing fee or submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis for this action.

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).

In a habeas matter, venue is proper in either the district of conviction or the district of 

confinement. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). In this case, petitioner challenges the result of a prison 

DONALD B. WILLIAMS,

 Petitioner,

vs.

E. VALENZUELA,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:15-cv-0155-JLT

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE UNITED 

STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL

DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 1:15-cv-00155-JLT Document 2 Filed 02/04/15 Page 1 of 2
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

disciplinary proceeding which occurred in California Men’s Colony prison located in the Central

District of California. Whereas here the petitioner attacks the execution of his sentence, as opposed to 

an attack on the conviction itself, the proper forum in which to review such a claim is the district of 

confinement. See Dunn v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989) (stating, in a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 

action, that "[t]he proper forum to challenge the execution of a sentence is the district where the 

prisoner is confined."). Petitioner is confined in California Men’s Colony prison located 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 4, 2015 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00155-JLT Document 2 Filed 02/04/15 Page 2 of 2