Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01799/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01799-1/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)

---

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

RODDY GUZMAN,

Petitioner,

v.

SCOTT FRAUENHEIM,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:14-cv-01799-GSA-HC

ORDER DISCHARGING THE ORDER TO 

SHOW CAUSE

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. 

On October 13, 2014, Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus in the 

Central District of California. (ECF No. 1). On November 17, 2014, the petition was transferred 

to this Court. (ECF No. 3). It appeared that Petitioner was challenging the imposition of a 102-

year to life sentence imposed in 2007 by the Superior Court of Kern County on the grounds that 

the court impermissibly used Petitioner’s 1999 and 2005 convictions sustained in Los Angeles 

Superior Court as prior strikes in sentencing Petitioner. (Pet. at 8-10). However, in his response 

to the Court’s order to show cause, Petitioner stated that “the only case I am appealing is the 

cases in 1999 and not 2007. I want to withdraw my plea in cases 1999 and not the 2007. I would 

like to go to trial for the 1999 cases.” (ECF No. 13).

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

Case 1:14-cv-01799-GSA Document 14 Filed 01/16/15 Page 1 of 3
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

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)). Based on Petitioner’s response 

to the order to show cause, 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 California, Western Division. See 28 

U.S.C. § 84(c)(2). Petitioner is presently confined at Pleasant Valley State Prison located in 

Coalinga, California, located in Fresno County, 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. Id.; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (court may transfer any civil action “to any 

other district or division where it might have been brought” for convenience of parties or “in the 

interest of justice”). 

Based on Petitioner’s response to the order to show cause, he is only challenging his 1999

conviction from a judgment issued by the Los Angeles County Superior Court, and therefore, 

venue is proper in the district of conviction, the Central District of California, Western Division. 

Accordingly, this action will be transferred. 

///

///

///

///

Case 1:14-cv-01799-GSA Document 14 Filed 01/16/15 Page 2 of 3
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

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition is transferred to the 

United States District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division, and the 

order to show cause, issued on December 11, 2014, is discharged.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 16, 2015 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01799-GSA Document 14 Filed 01/16/15 Page 3 of 3