Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01992/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01992-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWIN EDUARDO CHAVEZ,

Petitioner, No. 2:12-cv-0240 EFB P

vs.

M.D. McDONALD,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner without counsel seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2254. He seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 

However, petitioner has commenced this action in the wrong district.

Petitioner was convicted in the Riverside County Superior Court of first degree murder. 

Pet., Dckt. No. 1 at 1. The Riverside County Superior Court is located in the Central District of

California. See 28 U.S.C. 84(c). The petition reflects that petitioner is currently incarcerated at

Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility, which is located in San Diego County. Dckt. No. at 7. 

Thus, petition is confined in the Souther District of California. See 28 U.S.C. 84(d). The instant

petition challenges the results of a disciplinary decision that occurred while petitioner was

incarcerated at Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility.

////

1

Case 3:12-cv-01992-DMS-MDD Document 6 Filed 08/10/12 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

In a habeas action, venue is proper in either the district of confinement or the district of

conviction. 28 U.S.C. 2241(d). Petitioner was convicted in the Riverside County Superior

Court, but is confined in San Diego County. Thus, the Eastern District is not a proper venue for

this action. 

As the petition challenged a disciplinary action occurring at Richard J. Donovan

Correctional Facility, and witnesses and evidence necessary for the resolution of petitioner’s

application are more readily available in the county of petitioner’s confinement, the court will

transfer this action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. See

Rule 12, Rules Governing § 2254 Cases; 28 U.S.C. 1404(a); Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit

Court, 410 U.S. 484, 499 n. 15 (1973). The court declines to take action on petitioner’s

application to proceed in forma pauperis.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that this action is transferred to the United States District

Court for the Southern District of California. 

DATED: August 10, 2012.

2

Case 3:12-cv-01992-DMS-MDD Document 6 Filed 08/10/12 Page 2 of 2