Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00771/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00771-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
J. MacDonald
Respondent
Raymond Charles Morris
Petitioner

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAYMOND CHARLES MORRIS,

Petitioner,

v.

J. MACDONALD, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No. 16-cv-01736-DMR (PR)

ORDER OF TRANSFER

Petitioner, a state prisoner who is incarcerated at the La Palma Correctional Center in 

Arizona, has filed this pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging a judgment of 

conviction from the Shasta County Superior Court. Dkt. 1. Petitioner has consented to magistrate 

judge jurisdiction in this action, which has been assigned to the undersigned Magistrate Judge. Id. 

at 8. Petitioner has also filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. 2. 

A petition for a writ of habeas corpus made by a person in custody under the judgment and 

sentence of a state court of a State which contains two or more federal judicial districts may be 

filed in either the district of confinement or the district of conviction. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). 

The district court where the petition is filed, however, may transfer the petition to the other district 

in the furtherance of justice. See id. Federal courts in California traditionally have chosen to hear 

petitions challenging a conviction or sentence in the district of conviction. See Dannenberg v. 

Ingle, 831 F. Supp. 767, 767 (N.D. Cal. 1993); Laue v. Nelson, 279 F. Supp. 265, 266 (N.D. Cal. 

1968). If the petition is directed to the manner in which a sentence is being executed, e.g., if it 

involves parole or time credits claims, the district of confinement is the preferable forum. See 

Habeas L.R. 2254-3(a); Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989).

Here, Petitioner challenges a conviction and sentence incurred in the Shasta County 

Superior Court, which is within the venue of the Eastern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. 

Case 2:16-cv-00771-JAM-AC Document 3 Filed 04/14/16 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

§ 84. Because Petitioner is challenging his conviction, venue for the instant habeas action is 

proper in the district of conviction. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) and Habeas L.R. 2254-3(b), and in the interest of justice, 

this action is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of 

California.1 The Clerk shall transfer the case forthwith.

All remaining pending motions are TERMINATED on this court’s docket as no longer 

pending in this district. Dkt. 2.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 14, 2016

DONNA M. RYU

United States Magistrate Judge

 

1 Venue transfer is a non-dispositive matter and, thus, it falls within the scope of the 

jurisdiction of the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).

Case 2:16-cv-00771-JAM-AC Document 3 Filed 04/14/16 Page 2 of 2