Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01267/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01267-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tracy Lee Dotson
Petitioner
Deniel McEller
Respondent

Document Text:

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

TRACY LEE DOTSON,

Petitioner,

v.

DENIEL McELLER,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:15-cv-01267- GSA-HC

ORDER TRANSFERING CASE TO THE 

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, 

WESTERN DIVISION

Petitioner is a California state detainee proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of 

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Court notes that he has not paid the $5.00 

filing fee or submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis for this action. On August 11, 

2015, Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court challenging his 

commitment to Atascadero State Hospital. 

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 

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)). 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 the execution of a sentence are 

Case 1:15-cv-01267-GSA Document 2 Filed 08/20/15 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

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”).

The instant petition attacks Petitioner’s commitment to Atascadero State Hospital, which 

appears to be as a result of a proceeding in the San Luis Obispo County Superior Court, which is 

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

California. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(c)(2). Also, Atascadero State Hospital is located in San Luis

Obispo County, Western Division. Therefore, venue is proper in the Central District of 

California, Western Division. 

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be 

TRANSFERED to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Western

Division. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 20, 2015 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01267-GSA Document 2 Filed 08/20/15 Page 2 of 2