Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-00164/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-00164-0/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

Order of Transfer

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JF\HC.08\Rhine03938_transfer.wpd 1

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN S. RHINE,

Petitioner,

 vs.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Respondent. 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 08-03938 JF (PR)

ORDER OF TRANSFER

(Docket No. 2)

Petitioner, a prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2255, attacking a sentence imposed by this Court. However, is it obvious from the

motion that Petitioner is a state prisoner, who was convicted in San Diego Superior Court

and is currently serving his sentence at Atascadero State Hospital, a California state

institution. 

A state prisoner challenging the constitutionality of his state conviction may do so

by filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Venue for a

habeas action is proper in either the district of confinement or the district of conviction,

28 U.S.C. § 2241(d); however, petitions challenging a conviction are preferably heard in

the district of conviction. See Habeas L.R. 2254-3(a); Laue v. Nelson, 279 F. Supp. 265,

Case 3:09-cv-00164-MMA-WMC Document 4 Filed 01/23/09 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

Order of Transfer

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JF\HC.08\Rhine03938_transfer.wpd 2

266 (N.D. Cal. 1968); cf. Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989) (district of

confinement best forum to review execution of sentence).

Accordingly, this case is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for

the Southern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b), 1404(a); Habeas L.R.

2254-3(b)(1). In view of the transfer, the Court will not rule upon Petitioner’s pending

motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No. 2). 

The Clerk shall terminate all pending motions and transfer the entire file to the

Southern District of California. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

1/14/09

Case 3:09-cv-00164-MMA-WMC Document 4 Filed 01/23/09 Page 2 of 2