Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01132/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01132-1/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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

EDWARD VICTOR SHELL, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

DIANE JONES, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:14-cv-881-GEB-EFB P 

ORDER 

 Petitioner is a state prisoner without counsel seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 2254. He seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 

Petitioner claims that the abstract of judgment issued by the San Diego Superior Court 

following his 1997 robbery conviction (Case No. SCD 126559) is inaccurate, thereby requiring 

the issuance of a “corrected” abstract of judgment or other “corrective measures to address the 

unauthorized sentence.” ECF No. 1 at 1, 13, 16. Court records reflect that petitioner has 

previously challenged the 1997 robbery conviction through two federal petitions filed in the 

United States District Court for the Southern District of California. See Shell v. Terhune, No. 

3:00-cv1065-BTM-RBB (S.D. Cal.); Shell v. Kramer, No. 3:08-cv-2159-H-POR (S.D. Cal.). 

Petitioner is incarcerated in Sacramento County and was convicted in San Diego County. 

Sacramento County falls within the area covered by this court, while San Diego County falls 

within the area covered by the Southern District. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 2241(d), courts in both 

Case 3:14-cv-01132-LAB-WVG Document 9 Filed 05/02/14 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

the district of confinement and the district of conviction have concurrent jurisdiction over 

applications for habeas corpus filed by state prisoners. In this case, witnesses and evidence 

necessary for the resolution of petitioner’s application are more readily available in the county of 

conviction. See Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court, 410 U.S. 484, 499 n. 15 (1973). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the United 

States District Court for the Southern District of California. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d); 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1406(a). 

DATED: May 2, 2014. 

 

 

Case 3:14-cv-01132-LAB-WVG Document 9 Filed 05/02/14 Page 2 of 2