Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00574/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00574-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Brandon Alexander Favor
Petitioner
Daniel Parama
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRANDON ALEXANDER FAVOR,

Petitioner,

v.

DANIEL PARAMA, Warden,

Respondent.

1:16-cv-00574 MJS HC 

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE 

CENTRAL 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.

On April 25, 2016, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus with this 

Court. (Pet., ECF No. 1.) On May 3, 2016, the Court issued an order to show cause. 

(Order, ECF No. 4.) In the order, the Court noted that it was unclear whether the petition

was directed toward his underlying conviction in state court or to a prison disciplinary 

proceeding that occurred while Petitioner was incarcerated. (Id.) The Court ordered 

Petitioner to file an amended petition clarifying the claim(s) presented. (Id.)

Case 1:16-cv-00574-MJS Document 10 Filed 06/01/16 Page 1 of 3
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

Petitioner has since filed three separate amended petitions and a motion for 

extension of time (filed after the three amended petitions). (ECF Nos. 6-9.) While the 

petitions contain different claims, they all appear to challenge Petitioner’s underlying 

conviction from the Central District of California. 

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 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, it appears that Petitioner is challenging a conviction 

from Los Angeles County, which is in the Central District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 

84. 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

Case 1:16-cv-00574-MJS Document 10 Filed 06/01/16 Page 2 of 3
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

3

United States District Court for the Central District of California. The Court has not ruled 

on Petitioner’s motion for extension of time. (Doc. 9.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 31, 2016 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00574-MJS Document 10 Filed 06/01/16 Page 3 of 3