Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-01600/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-01600-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAYMOND WRIGHT,

Petitioner,

v.

W.L.MUNIZ,

Respondent.

1:15-cv-0477-SKO (HC) 

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 

THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF 

CALIFORNIA

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a habeas corpus action pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. ' 2254. 

Title 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d) provides as follows which respect to venue, jurisdiction, and 

transfer in a habeas proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§' 2254:

Where an application for a writ of habeas corpus

is made by a person in custody under the judgment

and sentence of a State court of a State which

contains two or more Federal judicial districts,

the application may be filed in the district court

for the district wherein such person is in custody

or in the district court for the district

within which the State court was held which

convicted and sentenced him and each of such

district courts shall have concurrent jurisdiction

to entertain the application. The district court

for the district wherein such application is filed

in the exercise of its discretion and in furtherance

of justice may transfer the application to the

Case 4:15-cv-01600-HSG Document 2 Filed 03/31/15 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

other district court for hearing and determination.

Although venue is generally proper in either the district of the prisoner’s confinement or 

the convicting court’s location, petitions challenging a conviction preferably are heard in the 

district of conviction, Laue v. Nelson, 279 F.Supp. 265, 266 (N.D.Cal.1968); petitions 

challenging execution of sentence are preferably heard in the district where the inmate is 

confined, Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir.1989). A court should further consider 

traditional considerations of venue, such as the convenience of parties and witnesses and the 

interests of justice. Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484, 495 (1973).

In this case, the petitioner is challenging the conduct of the California Department of 

Corrections and Rehabilitation with respect to calculation of conduct credit. Petitioner is an 

inmate of the Salinas Valley State Prison, which is located in Monterey County, which in turn is

situated within the Northern District of California. Therefore, the petition should have been filed 

in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. 

In the interest of justice, a federal court may transfer a case filed in the wrong district to 

the correct district. See 28 U.S.C. ' 1406(a); Starnes v. McGuire, 512 F.2d 918, 932 (D.C. Cir. 

1974).

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

States District Court for the Northern District of California.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 30, 2015 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 4:15-cv-01600-HSG Document 2 Filed 03/31/15 Page 2 of 2