Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00583/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00583-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Craig Koenig
Respondent
Jose Luis Partida
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

JOSE LUIS PARTIDA,

Petitioner,

v.

CRAIG KOENIG,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:20-cv-00387-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 (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 transfer” the habeas petition to 

Case 2:20-cv-00583-TLN-AC Document 3 Filed 03/18/20 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

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 conviction and sentence that occurred in the 

Sacramento County Superior Court, which is part of the Sacramento Division of the United 

States District Court for the Eastern District of California. See Local Rule 120(d). 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: March 18, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:20-cv-00583-TLN-AC Document 3 Filed 03/18/20 Page 2 of 2