Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05352/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05352-2/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES E. SMITH, )

 aka TAHEE ABD'RASHEED,

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

SCRIBER, WARDEN, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

 )

1:04-cv-05352-AWI-DLB-HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION (Docs. 45, 47)

ORDER DENYING PETITIONS FOR

WRIT OF MANDATE (Docs. 40, 41,

42,46)

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On March 15, 2005 and April 12, 2005, the Magistrate Judge

filed Findings and Recommendation that the Petition for Writ of

Mandate be DENIED. These Findings and Recommendation were served

on all parties and contained notice that any objections were to be

filed within thirty (30) days from the date of service of that

order. On April 28, 2005, Petitioner filed objections to the

Findings and Recommendation.

//

Case 1:04-cv-05352-AWI-DLB Document 55 Filed 06/16/05 Page 1 of 4
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

On April 30, 2004, the Court issued an order to show cause why the original

petition filed on February 26, 2004, should not be dismissed for failing to state

a claim and failing to exhaust the state court remedies. (Court Docs. 1, 12.)

Petitioner filed an amended petition on September 7, 2004. (Court Doc. 20.) On

October 12, 2004, the Court directed Respondent to file a response to the petition.

On November 16, 2004, Petitioner filed a motion to amend the petition. (Court Doc.

28.) The motion was granted on December 3, 2004, and the Court vacated its October

12, 2004, order directing Respondent to file a response. (Court Doc. 30.)

Petitioner submitted a second amended petition on April 12, 2005. (Court Doc. 48.)

2

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review of the case. 

Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Petitioner's

objections, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendation is supported by the record and proper

analysis. Petitioner's objections present no grounds for

questioning the Magistrate Judge's analysis. Petitioner is

improperly objecting to the conditions of his confinement in this

habeas corpus action. 

This action is proceeding on Petitioner's second amended

petition, filed April 12, 2005.1 (Court Doc. 48.) Because it is

clear from reviewing the second amended petition that Petitioner is

challenging the validity of his conviction obtained in the San

Mateo County Superior Court, the action must be transferred to the

appropriate federal court. 

The federal venue statute requires that a civil action, other

than one based on diversity jurisdiction, be brought only in “(1) a

judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants

reside in the same state, (2) a judicial district in which a

substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the

claim occurred, or a substantial part of the property that is the

subject of the action is situated, or (3) a judicial district in

Case 1:04-cv-05352-AWI-DLB Document 55 Filed 06/16/05 Page 2 of 4
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

3

which any defendant may be found, if there is no district in which

the action may otherwise be brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

The proper venue for challenging the validity of his

conviction is the district court containing the sentencing court,

while the proper venue to challenge the execution of his sentence

is the district court containing the prison in which Petitioner is

incarcerated. 

Although Petitioner has filed in the proper district court to

challenge the execution of his sentence, this petition should be

heard by the district court containing the sentencing court. 

Habeas corpus claims relating to a conviction or sentence should be

filed in the court where Petitioner was sentenced, not in this

district. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d); Local Rule 81-191(g). 

Additionally, the resolution of Petitioner’s claims involving the

sentencing court may render his remaining claims moot.

Petitioner is challenging a conviction from San Mateo County,

which is in the Northern District of California. Therefore, the

petition should have been filed in the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California. In the interest of

justice, a federal court may transfer a case filed in the wrong

district to the correct district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); Starnes

v. McGuire, 512 F.2d 918, 932 (D.C. Cir.1974).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation, filed March 15, 2005 and

April 12, 2005, are ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. The Petitions for Writ of Mandate, filed February 14,

2005, February 24, 2005, and March 21, 2005, are DENIED; and

3. This action is transferred to the United States District

Case 1:04-cv-05352-AWI-DLB Document 55 Filed 06/16/05 Page 3 of 4
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

4

Court for the Northern District of California.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 15, 2005 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05352-AWI-DLB Document 55 Filed 06/16/05 Page 4 of 4