Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01295/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01295-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VESTER LEE PATTERSON,

Petitioner,

v.

STU SHERMAN,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:15-cv-01295-GSA-HC

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE 

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, 

WESTERN DIVISION

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner is currently in the custody of the California Department 

of Corrections pursuant to a judgment of the Los Angeles County Superior Court for forcible 

rape and forcible oral copulation, both of which occurred in 1997. On May 9, 2011, Petitioner 

was sentenced to thirty two years in state prison. 

When a prisoner files a state habeas petition in a state that contains two or more federal 

judicial districts, the petition may be filed in either the judicial district in which the petitioner is 

presently confined or the judicial district in which he was convicted and sentenced. See 28 

U.S.C. § 2241(d); Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 442 (2004) (quoting Carbo v. United 

States, 364 U.S. 611, 618, 81 S. Ct. 338, 5 L. Ed. 2d 329 (1961)). The instant petition attacks a 

judgment of conviction that was entered in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, which is 

within the jurisdictional boundaries of the United States District Court for the Central District of 

Case 1:15-cv-01295-GSA Document 3 Filed 08/26/15 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

California, Western Division. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(c)(2). Petitioner is presently confined at 

California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility, which is within the jurisdictional bounds of the 

Eastern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(b). Thus, jurisdiction exists in both the 

Eastern and Central Districts of California.

Petitions challenging convictions or sentences are preferably heard in the district of 

conviction. See Laue v. Nelson, 279 F.Supp. 265, 266 (N.D.Cal. 1968). Petitions challenging 

execution of sentence are preferably heard in the district where the inmate is confined. See

Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989). Section 2241 further states that, rather 

than dismissing an improperly filed action, a district court, “in the exercise of its discretion and 

in furtherance of justice[,] may transfer” the habeas petition to another federal district for hearing 

and determination. 

Although Petitioner attempts to couch his arguments as challenges to the execution of his 

sentence, Petitioner’s arguments that his sentence violates ex post facto laws and that his 

sentence should be governed by the determinate sentencing law of 1997 and the Three Strikes 

Law at the time of the offense, are clearly challenges to the sentence. Therefore, Petitioner 

challenges a judgment issued by the Los Angeles County Superior Court, and venue is proper in 

the district of conviction, which is the Central District of California, Western Division. Thus, 

this action will be transferred. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition is transferred to the United 

States District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division. The Court has not 

ruled upon Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 26, 2015 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01295-GSA Document 3 Filed 08/26/15 Page 2 of 2