Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-07950/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-07950-0/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)

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRIS W. KIBUNGUCHY,

Petitioner,

v.

SMY SHNIDER, et al.,

Respondents.

Case No. 19-cv-07950-VC (PR) 

ORDER OF TRANSFER

Chris W. Kibunguchy, a California inmate incarcerated at the California Medical Facility 

located in Vacaville, has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254. The allegations in the petition appear to be attempting to state civil rights claims against 

personnel at the California Medical Facility. Whether this filing is considered to be a habeas 

petition or a civil rights complaint, it must be transferred to the Eastern District of California. 

A federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus made by a person in custody under the 

judgment and sentence of a state court is properly filed in either the district of confinement or the 

district of conviction. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). The district court where the petition is filed may 

transfer the petition to the proper district in the furtherance of justice. Id. Federal courts in 

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

district of conviction. Dannenberg v. Ingle, 831 F. Supp. 767, 767 (N.D. Cal. 1993). 

According to the petition, Kibunguchy is in custody pursuant to the ruling of the Solano 

County Parole Board, which lies within the venue of the Eastern District of California. 

28 U.S.C. § 84(b). Thus, the proper venue for the habeas petition lies in the Eastern District, not 

Case 3:19-cv-07950-VC Document 8 Filed 02/28/20 Page 1 of 2
2

in this district. 

If this filing is construed as a civil rights complaint, the challenged conduct occurred at 

the California Medical Facility, where Kibunguchy is confined. 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 

Because the alleged unconstitutional acts occurred in Vacaville, which is in the Eastern District 

of California, venue properly lies in the Eastern District. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) and Habeas L.R. 2254-3(b), and in the interest of justice, 

the Clerk of the Court is ordered to TRANSFER this action to the United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of California.

All pending motions are TERMINATED on this Court’s docket.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 28, 2020

______________________________________

VINCE CHHABRIA

United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-07950-VC Document 8 Filed 02/28/20 Page 2 of 2