Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00347/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00347-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James Mackey
Petitioner
Richard Subia
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES MACKEY, 1:07-cv-0079-OWW-TAG HC

Petitioner, 

vs. ORDER OF TRANSFER

RICHARD SUBIA, Warden,

Respondent.

 /

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

28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

The petitioner is challenging a conviction from San Joaquin County, which is part of the

Sacramento Division of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. 

Therefore, the petition should have been filed in the Sacramento Division. Although Petitioner

contends in the petition that he is not challenging his conviction, Petitioner alleges that the plea

agreement that resulted in his conviction has been violated. (Doc. 1, p. 9). Petitioner alleges that

in return for his cooperation and testimony, the District Attorney agreed to write a letter to the

Board of Prison Terms and/or the Department of Corrections “recommending that petitioner be

released at the earliest possible time upon having served the minimum sentence for first-degree

murder.” (Doc. 1, p. 8). Petitioner was assured at the time that, if he accepted the plea

agreement and fulfilled his obligations under it, he would be released after serving sixteen years

eight months (Id. at p. 9). Petitioner further alleges that those assurances “were based on the

Case 2:07-cv-00347-ALA Document 7 Filed 02/21/07 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

2

mistaken assumption that a parole recommendation from the District Attorney’s office would

carry enough weight to ensure that petitioner received parole at his initial parole hearing.” (Id.). 

Petitioner alleges that the San Joaquin County District Attorney’s representative “violated the

contract and written plea agreement by claiming to remain “neutral” yet made adverse statements

during petitioner’s parole suitability hearing.” (Id. at p. 12). Petitioner further alleges that,

despite his cooperation, he has not yet been released on parole. (Id. at p. 11). 

 Although Petitioner contends that he “raises no challenges herein to the judgment of

conviction,” and that he “raises only contract claims and requests rescission or specific

performance” of the plea agreement, it appears that, if Petitioner intends to establish that the plea

agreement has been violated and should be rescinded, he is making a de facto challenge to his

conviction, which was, of course, the direct result of the plea agreement to which Petitioner

objects. 

Accordingly, the Court concludes that, despite Petitioner’s arguments to the contrary, by

challenging the plea agreement upholding his conviction he is in fact challenging his conviction

itself. That conviction is from San Joaquin County, which is in the Sacramento Division of this

Court. Moreover, Petitioner is currently confined in Mule Creek State Prison, Ione, California. 

Ione, California, is located in Amador County, which is also within the Sacramento Division.

Pursuant to Local Rule 3-120(b), a civil action which has not been commenced in the

proper court may, on the court’s own motion, be transferred to the proper court. Therefore, this

action will be transferred to the Sacramento Division

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. This action is transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of

California sitting in Sacramento; and

///

///

Case 2:07-cv-00347-ALA Document 7 Filed 02/21/07 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

3

2. All future filings shall reference the new Sacramento case number assigned and shall

be filed at:

United States District Court

Eastern District of California

501 "I" Street, Suite 4-200

Sacramento, CA 95814

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 13, 2007 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:07-cv-00347-ALA Document 7 Filed 02/21/07 Page 3 of 3