Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-02496/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-02496-2/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILBERTO BELARDO,

Petitioner,

v.

CHRISTIAN PFEIFFER, Acting Warden,

1

Respondent.

Case No. 14-cv-02496-YGR (PR)

ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S 

MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE

Petitioner Wilberto Belardo brings the instant pro se habeas action under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254 to challenge his 2011 conviction and sentence rendered in the Solano County Superior 

Court for the 1998 murder of Jose Zarate and the special circumstance finding that Petitioner 

committed the murder during the commission of a robbery. Petitioner was sentenced to life in 

prison without the possibility of parole and to a term of twenty-five years to life for the personal 

discharge of a firearm causing death. He is currently incarcerated at Kern Valley State Prison in 

Delano, California.2 

The Court has granted Petitioner leave to proceed in forma pauperis status and issued an 

Order to Show Cause. Dkt. 9. Respondent filed an Answer. Dkt. 13. Although given the 

opportunity to do so, Petitioner did not file a Traverse. 

Respondent now moves to transfer venue to the Eastern District of California, where 

Petitioner was convicted. Dkts. 15, 16.

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

conviction. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). Habeas Local Rule 2254-3(a) and (b) provides, in relevant part:

(a) Venue. The following noncapital petitions for writs of habeas corpus shall be filed in 

 

1 Christian Pfeiffer, the current acting warden of the prison where Petitioner is 

incarcerated, has been substituted as Respondent pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure.

2 When Petitioner originally filed the instant petition, he was incarcerated at the California 

Correctional Institution in Tehachapi, California. The Court notes that Tehachapi is in Kern 

County, which is located within the venue of the Eastern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 84(b). 

Case 4:14-cv-02496-YGR Document 17 Filed 05/06/16 Page 1 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

this District:

(1) Petitions challenging the lawfulness of a conviction or sentence for which the 

petitioner was convicted and sentenced in the following counties: Alameda, Contra Costa, 

Del Norte, Humboldt, Lake, Marin, Mendocino, Monterey, Napa, San Benito, San 

Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz and Sonoma; or

(2) Petitions challenging the manner in which the sentence is being executed, such 

as loss of good time credits, where the petitioner is confined in an institution located in a 

county listed in Habeas L.R. 2254-3(a)(1) at the time the petition is filed.

(b) Transfer of Venue. If a petition is filed in this District which does not conform to 

Habeas L.R. 2254-3(a), venue shall be transferred to:

(1) The district of conviction or sentencing if the petition is challenging 

the conviction or sentence; or

(2) The district of confinement if the petition is challenging the manner in which 

the sentence is being executed.

Habeas L.R. 2254-3.

Here, the Court agrees with Respondent that Petitioner’s action should not proceed in this 

Court because it is not the proper venue for his claims. In the instant action, the Northern District 

of California is neither the district of confinement nor the district of conviction. Specifically, Kern 

Valley State Prison, where Petitioner is confined, is located in Delano, California, which is located 

in Kern County; Kern County is located within the venue of the Eastern District of California. See

28 U.S.C. § 84(b). Additionally, Solano County, where Petitioner was convicted, is also located 

within the venue of the Eastern District of California. See id.

When venue is improper, the district court has the discretion to either dismiss the action or 

transfer it “in the interest of justice.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). As federal courts in California 

traditionally have chosen to hear petitions challenging a conviction or sentence in the district of 

conviction, see Dannenberg v. Ingle, 831 F. Supp. 767, 767 (N.D. Cal. 1993); Laue v. Nelson, 279 

F. Supp. 265, 266 (N.D. Cal. 1968), the above-titled action is hereby TRANSFERRED, in the 

interest of justice, to the district of conviction, the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of California. See Habeas L.R. 2254-3(b); 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). 

Accordingly, Respondent’s Motion to Transfer Venue to District of Conviction is 

GRANTED. Dkts. 15, 16. The Court orders that, pursuant to Habeas L.R. 2254-3(b), the Clerk of 

the Court shall transfer this case to the Eastern District of California. All proceedings in this 

Case 4:14-cv-02496-YGR Document 17 Filed 05/06/16 Page 2 of 3
3

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

action will be stayed pending the Eastern District court’s review of this action after it has been 

transferred.

This Order terminates Docket Nos. 15 and 16.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

United States District Judge

May 6, 2016

Case 4:14-cv-02496-YGR Document 17 Filed 05/06/16 Page 3 of 3