Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01621/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01621-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
George Martin
Petitioner
Warden
Respondent
Jeanne Woodford
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

GEORGE MARTIN,

Petitioner,

v.

JEANNE WOODFORD, Warden,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 05-1621 AWI DLB HC

ORDER OF TRANSFER

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on December 21, 2005. 

Pursuant to this Court’s order of February 7, 2006, Petitioner filed an amended petition on March

3, 2006. 

After reviewing the original and amended petition, it is clear that Petitioner is challenging

a conviction arising out of the San Diego County Superior Court. 

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).

Case 1:05-cv-01621-AWI-DLB Document 11 Filed 03/13/06 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

 It appears that Petitioner is also attempting to raise claims challenging the conditions of 1

his confinement. Although these claims can be properly raised in this Court as Petitioner is currently incarcerated in

this jurisdiction, as stated in the Court’s February 7, 2006, order, any claims challenging the conditions of his

confinement must be raised by filing an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

2

In this case, Petitioner is challenging the validity of his conviction and 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. 

1

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

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 Diego County, which is in the Southern

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

Court for the Southern 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 Southern District of California.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 10, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01621-AWI-DLB Document 11 Filed 03/13/06 Page 2 of 2