Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01483/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01483-0/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

That same date, plaintiff filed a civil rights complaint in which she also appears to be

challenging the validity of the Fresno County conviction. By separate order filed

concurrently herewith, that action has been dismissed as duplicative. (See People of the

State of California v. Abston, C 08-4125 MMC (PR).)

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NANCY ABSTON,

Petitioner,

 vs.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

C 08-4362 MMC(PR)

ORDER OF TRANSFER

On September 17, 2008, petitioner, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed the

above-titled petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging

the validity of a conviction obtained in the Superior Court of Fresno County.1

 Petitioner has

not paid the filing fee or submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d), venue for a habeas action is proper in either the

district of confinement or the district of conviction. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). Where the

petition challenges a conviction or sentence, however, federal courts in California

traditionally have chosen to hear such petition in the district of conviction. See Dannenberg

v. Ingle, 831 F. Supp. 767, 767 (N.D. Cal. 1993); Laue v. Nelson, 279 F. Supp. 265, 266

Case 1:08-cv-01483-SMS Document 3 Filed 09/30/08 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

(N.D. Cal. 1968); see also Habeas L.R. 2254-3(a)(1). In the instant action, petitioner was

convicted in Fresno County, which is located within the venue of the Eastern District of

California. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(b). Consequently, venue is proper in the Eastern District, not

in the Northern District. 

When venue is improper, the district court has the discretion to either dismiss the

action or transfer it “in the interest of justice.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). Accordingly, in the

interest of justice, the above-titled action is hereby TRANSFERRED to the United States

District Court for the Eastern District of California.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 30, 2008 _______________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 1:08-cv-01483-SMS Document 3 Filed 09/30/08 Page 2 of 2