Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00744/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00744-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gloria Henry
Respondent
Ricarda Soria
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

RICARDA SORIA,

Petitioner,

v.

GLORIA HENRY,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 06-00744 AWI DLB HC

ORDER OF TRANSFER

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

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner is represented by Joseph Vincent Camarata, Esq. 

The federal venue statute requires that a civil action, other than one based on diversity

jurisdiction, be brought only in “(1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all

defendants reside in the same state, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events

or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of the property that is the

subject of the action is situated, or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant may be found, if

there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

In this case, Petitioner challenges both the validity of his sentence. The proper venue for

challenging the validity of his sentence is the district court containing the sentencing court, while

the proper venue to challenge the execution of his sentence is the district court containing the

prison in which Petitioner is incarcerated. 

Although Petitioner has filed in the proper district court to challenge the execution of his

Case 1:06-cv-00744-AWI-DLB Document 6 Filed 06/27/06 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

sentence, this petition should be heard by the district court containing the sentencing court. 

Under 28 U.S.C. section 2254, this Court does not have jurisdiction to hear claims relating to the

sentencing court where Petitioner was not sentenced in this district. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d);

Local Rule 81-191(g). Additionally, the resolution of Petitioner’s claims involving the

sentencing court may render his remaining claims moot.

Petitioner is challenging a conviction from San Mateo County, which is in the Northern

District of California. Therefore, the petition should have been filed in the United States District

Court for the Northern District of California. In the interest of justice, a federal court may

transfer a case filed in the wrong district to the correct district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); Starnes

v. McGuire, 512 F.2d 918, 932 (D.C. Cir.1974).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the United

States District Court for the Northern District of California.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 27, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

ah0l4d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00744-AWI-DLB Document 6 Filed 06/27/06 Page 2 of 2