Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02299/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02299-0/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

 See California Courts website at;

 http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/trialCourt.cfm?dist=1&doc_id=43530&doc_no=A091638 

-1- 06cv2299

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH ALLDREDGE, Civil No. 06-2299 BTM (WMc)

Petitioner, ORDER TRANSFERRING ACTION

TO UNITED STATES DISTRICT

COURT FOR THE NORTHERN

DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

vs.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, 

Respondents.

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding with a habeas corpus action filed pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2254 attacking a conviction from the Superior Court of San Mateo County,

California. Upon reviewing the petition, the Court finds that this case should be transferred in

the interest of justice. 

A petition for writ of habeas corpus may be filed in the United States District Court of

either the judicial district in which the petitioner is presently confined or the judicial district in

which he was convicted and sentenced. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d); Braden v. 30th Judicial

Circuit Court, 410 U.S. 484, 497 (1973). The Court takes judicial notice of Petitioner’s San

Mateo County Superior Court, Division 2 conviction, case number SC45687A1

, and Petitioner’s

subsequent direct appeal of that conviction in the California Court of Appeal, 1st District number

Case 3:06-cv-02299-BTM-WMC Document 3 Filed 10/31/06 Page 1 of 3
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

 It is further noted that Petitioner has filed no appeals in the California Court of Appeal, Fourth District Division

1, which encompasses San Diego County. 

-2- 06cv2299

A089768.2 As indicated by the above referenced cases, the application in the present matter

attacks a conviction in the Superior Court of San Mateo County, California, which is within the

jurisdictional boundaries of the United States District Court for the Northern District. See

28 U.S.C. § 84(a). Petitioner claims he was arrested in “Mission Bay Sea World” and therefore

venue was proper in San Diego. (Petition at 2.) However, Petitioner was not convicted in San

Diego for any crime for which he has appealed. 

Moreover, Petitioner is presently confined at Corcoran State Prison, which is located in

Kings County and is within the jurisdictional boundaries of the United States District Court for

the Eastern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(b). Thus, jurisdiction exists in the

Northern District or Eastern District; and not in the Southern District.

Although this Court does not have jurisdiction over the action, “[u]nder a provision of the

Federal Courts Improvement Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1631, if a court finds that there is a want of

jurisdiction the court shall transfer the action to any other such court in which the action could

have been brought ‘if it is in the interest of justice.’” Miller v. Hambrick, 905 F.2d 259, 262 (9th

Cir. 1990) (citing In re McCauley, 814 F.2d 1350, 1351-52 (9th Cir. 1987)). The Ninth Circuit

has held that transferring a habeas corpus proceeding to a district with proper jurisdiction will

be in the interest of justice because normally dismissal of an action that could be brought

elsewhere is “time-consuming and justice-defeating.” Miller, 905 F.2d at 262 (quoting

Goldlawr, Inc. v. Heiman, 369 U.S. 463, 467 (1962). Therefore, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631,

this Court may transfer this proceeding to a district with proper jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241(d).

When a habeas petitioner is challenging a state conviction, the district court of the district

in which a petitioner was convicted and sentenced is a more convenient forum because of the

accessibility of evidence, records and witnesses. Thus, it is generally the practice of the district

courts in California to transfer habeas actions challenging a state conviction to the district in

which the Petitioner was convicted. Any and all records, witnesses and evidence necessary for

Case 3:06-cv-02299-BTM-WMC Document 3 Filed 10/31/06 Page 2 of 3
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

-3- 06cv2299

the resolution of Petitioner’s contentions are more readily available in San Mateo County, which

is thus a more convenient forum. See Braden, 410 U.S. at 497, 499 n.15 (stating that a court can,

of course, transfer habeas cases to the district of conviction which is ordinarily a more

convenient forum); Laue v. Nelson, 279 F. Supp. 265, 266 (N.D. Cal. 1968). 

Therefore, in the furtherance of justice, IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court

transfer this matter to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court serve a

copy of this Order upon Petitioner and upon the California Attorney General.

DATED: October 31, 2006

Hon. Barry Ted Moskowitz

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-02299-BTM-WMC Document 3 Filed 10/31/06 Page 3 of 3