Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01954/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01954-0/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

ALEJANDRO RANGEL GONZALEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

DAVID L. RUNNELS, Warden

Respondent.

 /

CV F 05-1042 OWW DLB HC

ORDER OF TRANSFER

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

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 “(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).

In this case, Petitioner challenges the validity of his sentence. The proper venue for

challenging the validity of his sentence is the district court containing the sentencing court, while

the proper venue to challenge the execution of his sentence is the district court containing the

prison in which Petitioner is incarcerated. 

///

Case 2:05-cv-01954-LKK -GGH Document 4 Filed 09/27/05 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

Although Petitioner has filed in the proper district court to challenge the execution of his

sentence, this petition should be heard by the district court containing the sentencing court. 

Under 28 U.S.C. section 2254, this Court does not have jurisdiction to hear claims relating to the

sentencing court where Petitioner was not sentenced in this district. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d);

Local Rule 81-191(g). 

Petitioner is challenging a conviction from San Joaquin County, which is in the Eastern

District of California, Sacramento Division. Therefore, the petition should have been filed in the

United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division. 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 Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 26, 2005 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

ah0l4d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-01954-LKK -GGH Document 4 Filed 09/27/05 Page 2 of 2