Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02378/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02378-0/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2254. The matter has been referred to the Magistrate Judge 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rules 302 and 303. 

Pending before the Court is the petition, which was filed on October 

2, 2014. 

Petitioner is incarcerated at the Calipatria State Prison in 

Calipatria, California, located in Imperial County, California. 

Thus, Petitioner is incarcerated within the Southern District of 

California. 28 U.S.C. § 84(d).

///

ESTEBAN SANDOVAL,

 Petitioner,

v.

WARREN L. MONTGOMERY,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:14-cv-01541-SKO-HC

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 3:14-cv-02378-BAS-PCL Document 5 Filed 10/07/14 Page 1 of 4
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

Petitioner challenges findings resulting from a prison 

disciplinary proceeding that occurred while Petitioner was 

incarcerated at Corcoran State Prison, located within the Eastern 

District of California. (Pet., doc. 1, 1.) 

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

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 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).

Case 3:14-cv-02378-BAS-PCL Document 5 Filed 10/07/14 Page 2 of 4
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

Pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. ' 1406(a), a district court of a 

district in which a case is filed with venue in the wrong division 

or district shall dismiss, or in the interest of justice, transfer 

the case to any district or division in which it could have been 

brought. Title 28 U.S.C. ' 1631 provides that if a civil action is 

filed in a court that lacks jurisdiction, the court shall, in the

interest of justice, transfer the action to any other court in which 

the action could have been brought at the time it was filed or 

noticed, and the action shall proceed as if it had been filed in or 

noticed for the court to which it is transferred on the date it was 

actually filed in or noticed for the transferring court.

Here, the petition concerns not the propriety of Petitioner=s 

conviction or sentence, but rather the execution of his sentence. 

The Court=s jurisdiction is not clear: unless Petitioner was 

convicted in a state court located within the Eastern District of 

California, the Court does not have jurisdiction over the 

controversy. Even if the Court has jurisdiction, the petition 

concerns execution of Petitioner=s sentence. Generally, the Southern

District -- the district in which the Petitioner is confined --

would be the appropriate venue for the action. Instead of delaying 

the determination of the Court=s jurisdiction, the interests of 

justice would be best served by transferring the petition to the 

district of Petitioner=s confinement. Such a transfer is proper 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1406(a) and 2241(d) if Petitioner=s state 

court conviction was sustained in a court located within this 

district, or pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1631 if this Court lacked 

jurisdiction because Petitioner=s state court conviction was not 

Case 3:14-cv-02378-BAS-PCL Document 5 Filed 10/07/14 Page 3 of 4
4

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

sustained in a court located within the Eastern District.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the petition be TRANSFERRED to 

the United States District Court for the Southern District of 

California.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 7, 2014 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:14-cv-02378-BAS-PCL Document 5 Filed 10/07/14 Page 4 of 4