Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00711/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00711-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ayers
Respondent
Stevie J Smith
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-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVIE J SMITH,

Petitioner, 

vs.

AYERS,

Respondent.

 /

1:09-cv-00711 MJS HC

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF

CALIFORNIA

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a habeas corpus action pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254. 

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).

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

conviction. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). The district court for the district wherein such an application is filed

in the exercise of its discretion and in furtherance of justice may transfer the application to the other

Case 1:09-cv-00711-MJS Document 8 Filed 05/03/10 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-

district court for hearing and determination. Id. 

It is preferable for petitions challenging a conviction or sentence to be heard in the district of

conviction while petitions challenging the manner in which the sentence is being executed be heard in

the district of confinement. Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989). In this case, the

petitioner is challenging a conviction from San Bernardino County, which is in the Central District of

California. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(b). Therefore, the petition should have been filed in the United States

District Court for the Central District of California. In the interest of justice, the petition will be

transferred to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a)

and 2241(d).

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

District Court for the Central District of California.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 28, 2010 /s/ Michael J. Seng 

ci4d6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00711-MJS Document 8 Filed 05/03/10 Page 2 of 2