Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00983/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00983-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY R. BARRON,

Petitioner,

v.

KAMALA HARRIS,

Respondent.

1:15-cv-00983 MJS HC 

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

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).

Case 1:15-cv-00983-MJS Document 5 Filed 07/06/15 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

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 

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, Petitioner is challenging the manner in which the 

sentence is being executed. Specifically, Petitioner is challenging the application of a 

recently enacted California law to his credit earning capacity. Therefore, the petition 

should have been filed in the district of confinement, the United States District Court for 

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

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 2, 2015 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00983-MJS Document 5 Filed 07/06/15 Page 2 of 2