Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01481/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01481-2/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

MATTHEW LINDERMAN,

Petitioner,

v.

HEIDI LACKNER,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:14-cv-01481-LJO-GSA-HC

ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S

MOTION TO TRANSFER CASE TO THE 

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

(ECF No. 17)

Petitioner is a state prisoner, represented by counsel, proceeding with a petition for writ 

of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On September 22, 2014, Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus in 

this Court. (ECF No. 1). In the instant petition, Petitioner challenges his 2011 conviction in the 

Superior Court of San Bernardino County for kidnapping, sexual battery by restraint, soliciting a 

bribe, soliciting to engage in lewd conduct, and oral copulation under color of authority. On 

March 16, 2015, Respondent filed a motion to transfer this action to the Central District of 

California. (ECF No. 17). On March 22, 2015, Petitioner filed an opposition to Respondent’s 

motion to transfer this action. (ECF No. 18). On March 25, 2015, Respondent filed a reply to 

Petitioner’s opposition. (ECF No. 19).

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 

Case 1:14-cv-01481-LJO-GSA Document 20 Filed 04/06/15 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

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 San Bernardino County Superior Court, which is 

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

California, Eastern Division. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(c)(1). Petitioner is presently confined at Sierra 

Conservation Center located in Jamestown, California, located in Tuolumne 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”). 

As Petitioner challenges his 2011 conviction from a judgment issued by the San 

Bernardino County Superior Court, venue is proper in the district of conviction, the Central 

District of California, Eastern District. Although Petitioner argues that the petition should not be 

transferred to the Central District because it would be a hardship for him to appear at hearings in 

the Central District, at this time, there are no hearings set in this case. Although Petitioner claims 

that it would be a great hardship for him to have to go to the Central District for any hearings, he 

has not shown that the interests of justice favor the petition remaining in the Eastern District. As 

Respondent points out, there are eleven victims in this case who reside in the Central District and 

the material events of this case occurred in the Central District. If the United States District 

Court for the Central District of California orders that an evidentiary hearing be held, the critical 

Case 1:14-cv-01481-LJO-GSA Document 20 Filed 04/06/15 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

witnesses will be in the Central District and the pertinent records are located there. Therefore, in 

the interests of justice, the Central District is the appropriate venue for this action at this time. 

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that Respondent’s motion to transfer the 

petition be GRANTED and the petition for writ of habeas corpus be TRANSFERED to the 

United States District Court for the Central District of California. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 6, 2015 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01481-LJO-GSA Document 20 Filed 04/06/15 Page 3 of 3