Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00639/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00639-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Vimal Nand Reddy
Petitioner
James Yates
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VIMAL NAND REDDY, 1:06-CV-0639 OWW LJO HC

Petitioner, 

vs.

JAMES YATES, Warden,

Respondent. ORDER OF TRANSFER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a habeas corpus action pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254, together with payment of the sum of $5.00 as the filing fee for the petition for writ of

habeas corpus. In addition, petitioner has submitted a motion to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915. 

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 this case, the petitioner is challenging a conviction from San Mateo County, which is in the

Northern District of California. Therefore, the petition should have been filed in the United States

Case 1:06-cv-00639-OWW -LJO Document 4 Filed 06/15/06 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

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 HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. This court will not rule on petitioner's request to proceed in forma pauperis.

2. This matter is transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of

California.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 14, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

23ehd0 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00639-OWW -LJO Document 4 Filed 06/15/06 Page 2 of 2