Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00359/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00359-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alex Leonard Azevedo
Petitioner
The People
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

ALEX LEONARD AZEVEDO,

Petitioner,

v.

THE PEOPLE,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:20-cv-00359-EPG-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 1:20-cv-00359-EPG Document 2 Filed 03/11/20 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’s claims relate to his convictions and sentence from the Colusa County 

Superior Court, which is part of the Sacramento Division of the United States District Court for 

the Eastern District of California. Therefore, venue is proper in the Sacramento Division. Local 

Rule 120(d). 

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 court. Therefore, this action 

will be transferred to the Sacramento Division. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. This action is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of California sitting in Sacramento; and

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 10, 2020 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00359-EPG Document 2 Filed 03/11/20 Page 2 of 2