Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01084/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01084-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JASON SAUNDERS,

Petitioner, 

vs.

MCCAFFE,

Respondent.

 /

1:10-cv-01084-JLT HC

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF

CALIFORNIA

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and presently confined in the California State

Prison, Los Angeles County, has filed a habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc.

1). In the petition, Petitioner challenges the conditions of his confinement, alleging that prison

personnel unlawfully seized and retained legal materials Petitioner kept in his cell as well as his

personal television. (Id.). On July 13, 2010, the Court authorized Petitioner to proceed in forma

pauperis. (Doc. 3). 

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 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).

-1-

Case 1:10-cv-01084-JLT Document 4 Filed 07/22/10 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

In a habeas matter, venue is proper in either the district of conviction or the district of

confinement. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). Where a petitioner attacks the execution of his sentence, the

proper forum in which to review such a claim is the district of confinement. See Dunn v. Henman,

875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989) (stating, in a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 action, that "[t]he proper forum to

challenge the execution of a sentence is the district where the prisoner is confined.").

In this case, Petitioner does not challenge his conviction in the Kings County Superior Court. 

Rather, he challenges the allegedly unlawful seizure by prison staff of his personal property,

including law books and a television. The events alleged in the petition occurred at Petitioner’s

present place of incarceration, i.e., the California State Prison, Los Angeles County (“CSP-LAC”),

Lancaster, California. All of the individuals alleged in the petition to have unlawfully seized

Petitioner’s property are employed at CSP-LAC. Lancaster, California is located within the

jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Therefore, the

petition should have been filed in the United States District Court for the Central 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 this matter is transferred to the United States

District Court for the Central District of California.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 22, 2010 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

9j7khi UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

-2-

Case 1:10-cv-01084-JLT Document 4 Filed 07/22/10 Page 2 of 2