Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-06107/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-06107-0/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL J. WASHINGTON,

Petitioner,

v.

LYNCH,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:19-cv-01131-JDP (HC)

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE

Petitioner Michael J. Washington, a state prisoner without counsel, seeks a writ of habeas 

corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 1. Because petitioner challenges a state-court judgment 

entered by the Superior Court of California, County of Sonoma, the court will transfer the case to 

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

A state prisoner may file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in one of two districts: “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.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2241(d). In situations where these two districts differ, the district courts of both districts have 

concurrent jurisdiction, and the court in which the petition is filed may exercise its discretion to 

transfer the petition to the other district “in furtherance of justice.” Id.; see also 28 U.S.C. 

' 1406(a). Traditionally, federal courts in California have chosen to hear habeas petitions 

challenging a conviction or sentence in the district of conviction, see Dannenberg v. Ingle, 831 F. 

Case 5:19-cv-06107-BLF Document 2 Filed 09/20/19 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

Supp. 767, 767 (N.D. Cal. 1993), because records, witnesses, and other evidence necessary for 

resolving the petition are in that district, see Woods v. California, No. 14-cv-289, 2014 WL 

1128430, at *1, n.1 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2014). 

Here, petitioner challenges a state-court judgment from Sonoma. ECF No. 1 at 2; see also

People v. Washington, No. A122299, 2009 WL 2875363, at *1 (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 9, 2009). 

Following the custom of the federal courts in California, this court will transfer the petition to the 

Northern District. A “substantial part of the events . . . giving rise to the claim occurred” in the

Northern District, so venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

Order

This matter is transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 19, 2019 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

No. 202

Case 5:19-cv-06107-BLF Document 2 Filed 09/20/19 Page 2 of 2