Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00247/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00247-0/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\WQH\07-0247-transfer.wpd, 2137 -1- 07cv0247

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MANUEL MENDEZ, Civil No. 07-0247 WQH (PCL)

Petitioner, ORDER TRANSFERRING ACTION

TO UNITED STATES DISTRICT

COURT FOR THE CENTRAL

DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA,

SOUTHERN DIVISION

vs.

V.M. ALMAGER, 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 Orange 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

judgment of conviction that was entered in the Orange County Superior Court, which is within

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

California, Southern Division. 28 U.S.C. § 84(c)(3). Petitioner is presently confined at

Centinela State Prison in Imperial, California, located in Imperial County, which is within the

Case 3:07-cv-00247-WQH-PCL Document 3 Filed 02/13/07 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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\WQH\07-0247-transfer.wpd, 2137 -2- 07cv0247

jurisdictional boundaries of the United States District Court for the Southern District of

California. 28 U.S.C. § 84(d). Thus, jurisdiction exists in both the Central and Southern

Districts.

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

district in which the judgment of conviction was entered 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 questioning judgments of conviction to the

district in which the judgment was entered. Any and all records, witnesses and evidence

necessary for the resolution of Petitioner’s contentions are available in Orange County. 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 Central District of California,

Southern 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: February 13, 2007

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00247-WQH-PCL Document 3 Filed 02/13/07 Page 2 of 2