Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03372/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03372-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

K. R. JOHNSON, 

Plaintiff, 

 vs.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS AND

REHABILITATION, et al, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-3372 JSW (PR) 

ORDER OF TRANSFER 

Plaintiff is a state prisoner currently incarcerated at Corcoran State Prison, located

in Corcoran, California, within the venue of the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of California. He filed this civil rights action (which he has called a

petition for a writ of habeas corpus) in the United States District Court for the Northern

District of California on May 23, 2006, complaining about the failure of officials at the

prison to provide him with required prescription drugs and to respond to inmate appeals

he has brought. 

Because Plaintiff’s petition does not challenge the fact or duration of his

confinement, it is properly brought as a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, rather

than as a habeas corpus petition. Traditionally, challenges to prison conditions have

been cognizable only via § 1983, while challenges implicating the fact or duration of

confinement must be brought through a habeas petition. Docken v. Chase, 393 F.3d

1024, 1026 (9th Cir. 2004). A Court may construe a habeas petition by a prisoner

attacking the conditions of his confinement as a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. §

1983. See Wilwording v. Swenson, 404 U.S. 249, 251 (1971). However, because this
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

Court is transferring the petition, it will not do so at this time. 

When jurisdiction is not founded solely on diversity, venue is proper in the

district in which (1) any defendant resides, if all of the defendants reside in the same

state, (2) the district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to

the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is

situated, or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant may be found, if there is no

district in which the action may otherwise be brought. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Where a

case is filed in the wrong venue, the district court has the discretion either to dismiss the

case or transfer it to the proper federal court “in the interest of justice.” 28 U.S.C. §

1406(a). Venue may be raised by the court sua sponte where the defendant has not yet

filed a responsive pleading and the time for doing so has not run. Costlow v. Weeks, 790

F.2d 1486, 1488 (9th Cir. 1986). 

Plaintiff complains about conditions of confinement at Corcoran State Prison,

located in Kings County, within the venue of the Eastern District of California. See 28

U.S.C. § 84. Therefore, the Court will transfer this action to the United States District

Court for the Eastern District of California. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED in the

interest of justice, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), that this action be

TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of

California. The Clerk of the Court shall transfer this matter forthwith.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:June 1, 2006 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge