Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_17-cv-00225/USCOURTS-caed-1_17-cv-00225-0/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

MARVIN D. SEARLES,

Petitioner,

v.

SCOTT KERNAN, et al.,

Respondents.

1:17-cv-00225 MJS (HC) 

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 

THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF 

CALIFORNIA

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 2254.

The federal venue statute requires that a civil action, other than one based on 

diversity jurisdiction, be brought only in A(1) a judicial district where any defendant 

resides, if all defendants reside in the same state, (2) a judicial district in which a 

substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a 

substantial part of the 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).

Venue for a habeas action is proper in either the district of confinement or the 

district of conviction. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). The district court for the district wherein such 

an application is filed in the exercise of its discretion and in furtherance of justice may 

Case 1:17-cv-00225-MJS Document 6 Filed 02/21/17 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

transfer the application to the other district court for hearing and determination. Id.

It is preferable for petitions challenging a conviction or sentence to be heard in the 

district of conviction while petitions challenging the manner in which the sentence is 

being executed be heard in the district of confinement. Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 

249 (9th Cir. 1989). In this case, it appears that Petitioner is challenging a conviction 

from Riverside County, which is in the Central District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 84. 

Therefore, the petition should have been filed in the United States District Court for the 

Central District of California. In the interest of justice, the petition will be transferred to 

the United States District Court for the Central District of California. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a) 

and 2241(d).

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

United States District Court for the Central District of California.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 21, 2017 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:17-cv-00225-MJS Document 6 Filed 02/21/17 Page 2 of 2