Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-01840/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-01840-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Josh Prudhel
Respondent
Jeff Lamonte Sigler
Petitioner

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

JEFF LAMONTE SIGLER,

Petitioner,

v.

JOSH PRUDHEL,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:24-cv-00762-SAB-HC

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE 

SACRAMENTO DIVISION OF THE 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

When a state prisoner files a 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 the 

execution of a sentence are preferably heard in the district where the inmate is confined. See

Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989). 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). 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 

Case 2:24-cv-01840-DC-AC Document 3 Filed 07/02/24 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

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”).

Here, Petitioner challenges a criminal judgment from the San Joaquin County Superior 

Court. Therefore, venue is proper in the Sacramento Division. Pursuant to Local Rule 120(f), a 

civil action which has not been commenced in the proper court, may, on the court’s own motion, 

be transferred to the proper venue within the District. Therefore, this action will be transferred to 

the Sacramento Division.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. This action is transferred to the Sacramento Division of the United States District 

Court for the Eastern District of California.

2. All future filings shall reference the new Sacramento case number assigned and shall 

be filed at:

United States District Court

Eastern District of California

501 “I” Street, Suite 4-200

Sacramento, CA 95814

3. This Court has not ruled on Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 2, 2024 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:24-cv-01840-DC-AC Document 3 Filed 07/02/24 Page 2 of 2