Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00424/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00424-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
D. L. Runnels
Respondent
Florzell Thomas Jr.
Petitioner

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FLORZELL THOMAS JR.,

Petitioner,

v.

D. L. RUNNELS, warden; et al.,

Respondents. /

No. C 07-424 MHP (pr)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

Florzell Thomas, Jr., has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus that is

incomprehensible. He currently is in custody in the High Desert State Prison in Susanville,

in Lassen County, within the venue of the Eastern District of California, and was convicted

in Los Angeles County, within the venue of the Central District of California. Venue is

proper in a habeas action in either the district of confinement or the district of conviction, 28

U.S.C. § 2241(d); however, a petition challenging the execution of a sentence is preferably

heard in the district of confinement and a petition challenging a conviction is preferably

heard in the district of conviction. Habeas L.R. 2254-3(a). Venue is not proper in the

Northern District for Thomas to challenge his conviction or the execution of his sentence. 

An action filed in the wrong venue may be dismissed or transferred to the proper venue. See

28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). Although the court frequently transfers prisoner cases to the proper

venue when they have been filed in the wrong venue, it will not do so here because the court

cannot understand enough of the petition to determine whether it challenges the conviction or

the execution of the sentence and therefore cannot determine the proper venue.

Case 3:07-cv-00424-MHP Document 10 Filed 04/11/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) this action is DISMISSED. This

dismissal is without prejudice to petitioner filing a new action in the proper venue. 

Petitioner's in forma pauperis application is DENIED. The clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 10, 2007 

Marilyn Hall Patel

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00424-MHP Document 10 Filed 04/11/07 Page 2 of 2