Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02356/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02356-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Daniel Cox
Petitioner
Ronald J. Rackley
Respondent

Document Text:

1

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

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding in propria persona with a petition for writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

DISCUSSION

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 

DANIEL COX,

 Petitioner,

v.

RONALD J. RACKLEY, Warden,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:13-cv-01676-JLT

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE 

SACRAMENTO DIVISION OF THIS COURT

Case 2:13-cv-02356-JAM-GGH Document 3 Filed 11/13/13 Page 1 of 2
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

proper forum in which to review such a claim 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.”)

In this case, petitioner is challenging a conviction from the Superior Court of Shasta County, 

which is in the Sacramento Division of the Eastern District of California. Because the matter should 

be addressed in the forum where petitioner was convicted, the petition should have been filed in the 

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

Pursuant to Local Rule 120(f), a civil action which has not been commenced in the proper division of 

a court may, on the court’s own motion, be transferred to the proper division of the court. Therefore, 

this action will be transferred to the Sacramento Division of this Court.

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,

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: November 12, 2013 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:13-cv-02356-JAM-GGH Document 3 Filed 11/13/13 Page 2 of 2