Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01168/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01168-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Marcus A. Nickelberry
Petitioner
State of California
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARCUS A. NICKELBERRY,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Respondent.

Case No. 13-cv-2486-VC 

ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S 

MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE

Doc nos. 9 and 13

Marcus A. Nickelberry, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of 

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his state conviction. Nickelberry was 

convicted of two counts of robbery with various enhancements after a jury trial in Solano County

and was sentenced to twenty-seven years. He is incarcerated at the Los Angeles Metropolitan 

Detention Center in Lancaster, California. 

The respondent moves to transfer venue to the Eastern District of California, where

Nickelberry was convicted.

Venue for a habeas action is proper in either the district of confinement or the district of 

conviction. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). Habeas Local Rule 2254-3(a) and (b) provides, in relevant part:

(a) Venue. The following noncapital petitions for writs of habeas corpus shall be filed in 

this District:

(1) Petitions challenging the lawfulness of a conviction or sentence for which the 

petitioner was convicted and sentenced in the following counties: Alameda, Contra Costa, 

Del Norte, Humboldt, Lake, Marin, Mendocino, Monterey, Napa, San Benito, San 

Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz and Sonoma; or

(2) Petitions challenging the manner in which the sentence is being executed, such 

as loss of good time credits, where the petitioner is confined in an institution located in a 

county listed in Habeas L.R. 2254-3(a)(1) at the time the petition is filed.

Case 2:14-cv-01168-JKS Document 17 Filed 05/09/14 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

(b) Transfer of Venue. If a petition is filed in this District which does not conform to 

Habeas L.R. 2254-3(a), venue shall be transferred to:

(1) The district of conviction or sentencing if the petition is challenging 

the conviction or sentence; or

(2) The district of confinement if the petition is challenging the manner in which 

the sentence is being executed.

Habeas L.R. 2254-3.

Because Nickelberry is challenging his conviction, imposed in Solano County, which is 

located in the Eastern District, venue for his habeas case lies in the Eastern District, not in this 

district. Therefore, this case is transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) (district court may dismiss or transfer case filed in 

wrong venue); Habeas L.R. 2254-3(b). 

Respondent requests the Court vacate the Order to Show Cause, doc. no. 7. The Court

vacates the briefing schedule set forth in the Order to Show Cause, but does not vacate the 

substantive portions of the Order. The Court denies without prejudice the respondent's motion to 

dismiss based upon lack of exhaustion. Doc. no. 9. Respondent may re-file this motion once this 

case is transferred to the Eastern District. This Order terminates docket nos. 9 and 13.

This Clerk of the Court shall transfer this case to the Eastern District of California. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 9, 2014

______________________________________

VINCE CHHABRIA

United States District Judge

Case 2:14-cv-01168-JKS Document 17 Filed 05/09/14 Page 2 of 2