Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02193/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02193-1/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

For the Northern District of California

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 1This facility is located in the Northern District of California.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAUL KIP CLEVELAND,

Petitioner,

 v.

A.P. KANE,

Respondent.

_____________________________

_

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

No. C 05-2193 MMC (PR)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

TRANSFER

(Docket No. 3)

Petitioner, a California prisoner incarcerated at the California Training Facility,

Soledad,1 and proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled petition for a writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In the petition, he claims that his constitutional rights are being

violated by the state court’s denial of his request for a transcript he assertedly needs in order to

pursue a claim in state habeas proceedings, wherein he alleges that restitution deductions from

his prison salary violate his plea agreement. Respondent has filed a motion to transfer the case

to the Central District of California on the ground that petitioner’s conviction was obtained in

that district. 

A petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by a person in custody under the judgment

and sentence of a state court of a state that contains two or more federal judicial districts may

be filed in either the district of confinement or the district of conviction. See 28 U.S.C. §

2241(d). Both such districts have concurrent jurisdiction to entertain the petition; however,

the district court for the district in which the petition is filed may transfer the petition to the

other district in the furtherance of justice. See id. Federal courts in California traditionally
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

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

which, in this instance, is the Central District of California. 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). 

As noted, petitioner is confined in the Northern District, but was convicted in the

Central District. Although the assertedly improper garnishment of wages is alleged to have 

occurred in this district, the petition does not challenge the garnishment itself. Rather, the

petition challenges the state trial court's rejection of petitioner’s motion for a transcript, and,

as noted, that court is located in the Central District. Contrary to petitioner's opposition to the

motion, it is the terms of his conviction that are at issue in this case. The petition states:

Claim One: "Petitioner has been illegally denied his Constitutional Right to a

copy of the transcripts of his court proceedings, those transcripts are required to

facilitate the successful prosecution of a writ of Habeas Corpus challenging the

terms of his plea bargain.

. . .

Claim Two: Petitioner has been denied due process when the lower courts

summarily denied his motion and petition for a writ of Habeas Corpus Without

stating reason(s) for the denial[.]

(See Petition, filed May 27, 2005, at 5 (emphasis added).) The above-highlighted language

demonstrates that petitioner’s complaint is with the state courts located in the Central District,

and not with the prison officials located in this district. 

Accordingly, respondent’s motion to transfer is GRANTED, and the above-titled action

is hereby TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Central District of

California. 

This order terminates Docket No. 3.

The Clerk shall close the file on the Northern District docket.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 19, 2005

 _________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge