Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00740/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00740-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Adams
Respondent
John Fratus
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

JOHN FRATUS,

Petitioner, 

vs.

ADAMS, Warden at Corcoran Prison,

Respondent.

 /

1:10-cv-00740 MJS (HC)

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF

CALIFORNIA

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, challenges a prison disciplinary action by filing

this habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

Petitioner has not paid the $5.00 filing fee or submitted an application to proceed in forma

pauperis for this action.

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 a habeas matter, venue is proper in either the district of conviction or the district of

confinement. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). In this case, petitioner challenges the result of a prison

Case 1:10-cv-00740-MJS Document 3 Filed 05/12/10 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-

disciplinary proceeding, i.e., he attacks the execution of his sentence, not the conviction itself. In

such case, the proper forum in which to seek review is the district of confinement. See Dunn v.

Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989) (stating, in a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 action, that "[t]he proper

forum to challenge the execution of a sentence is the district where the prisoner is confined."). 

Petitioner is confined in prison located in the Northern District of California. Therefore, his 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 ORDERED that this matter be and hereby is transferred to the United

States District Court for the Northern District of California.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 11, 2010 /s/ Michael J. Seng 

ci4d6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-00740-MJS Document 3 Filed 05/12/10 Page 2 of 2