Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00925/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00925-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Terrence Brownlee
Petitioner
Tom Feilken
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TERRENCE BROWNLEE,

Petitioner,

v.

TOM FEILKEN,

Respondent.

/

1:09-cv-00668-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.

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). Where a petitioner attacks the execution of his sentence, the

proper forum in which to review such a claim is the district of confinement. See Dunn v.

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

th

proper forum to challenge the execution of a sentence is the district where the prisoner is

1

Case 2:10-cv-00925-LKK -DAD Document 25 Filed 04/16/10 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

confined.”).

In this case, Petitioner was sentenced in Fresno County Superior Court, which is located

within the Eastern District of California. Petitioner is currently incarcerated at High Desert State

Prison, in Lassen County, which lies within the Eastern District of California, Sacramento

Division. In addition, the instant petition is premised on events relating to Petitioner’s parole

proceeding which took place at Folsom State Prison-also within the jurisdiction of the Eastern

District of California, Sacramento Division. Accordingly, this matter should be addressed in the

forum where petitioner is confined. Therefore, the petition should have been filed in the United

States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division. 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 Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division. All future filings shall

reference the new Sacramento case number assigned and shall be filed at:

United States District Court

Eastern District of California

Sacramento Division

501 “I” Street, Suite 4-200

Sacramento, CA 95814

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 15, 2010 /s/ Dennis L. Beck

ah0l4d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 2:10-cv-00925-LKK -DAD Document 25 Filed 04/16/10 Page 2 of 2