Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02337/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02337-0/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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\DMS\06cv2337 transfer.wpd, 10306 -1- 06cv2337

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARTURO PENA GOMEZ, Civil No. 06-2337 DMS (RBB)

Petitioner, ORDER TRANSFERRING ACTION

TO UNITED STATES DISTRICT

COURT FOR THE CENTRAL

DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA,

EASTERN DIVISION

vs.

JAMES YATES, Warden

Respondent.

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 Riverside 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 application in the present matter attacks a

conviction in the Superior Court of Riverside County, California, which is within the

jurisdictional boundaries of the United States District Court for the Central District, Eastern

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:06-cv-02337-DMS-RBB Document 5 Filed 10/30/06 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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\DMS\06cv2337 transfer.wpd, 10306 -2- 06cv2337

Division. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(c)(1). Moreover, Petitioner is presently confined at Pleasant

Valley State Prison, which is located in Fresno 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 Central 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

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

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

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:06-cv-02337-DMS-RBB Document 5 Filed 10/30/06 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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\DMS\06cv2337 transfer.wpd, 10306 -3- 06cv2337

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 Central District of California,

Eastern Division. 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 30, 2006

HON. DANA M. SABRAW

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-02337-DMS-RBB Document 5 Filed 10/30/06 Page 3 of 3