Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00963/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00963-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Larry Prunty
Petitioner
Larry Scribner
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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY PRUNTY,

Petitioner,

 vs.

LARRY SCRIBNER, Warden,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

C 08-2070 MMC(PR)

ORDER OF TRANSFER

On April 21, 2008, petitioner, a California prisoner incarcerated at Calipatria State

Prison and proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled petition for a writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He challenges a conviction obtained in the Superior Court of

Sacramento County. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d), venue for a habeas action is proper in either the

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

petition challenges a conviction or sentence, however, federal courts in California

traditionally have chosen to hear such petition 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); see also Habeas L.R. 2254-3(a)(1). In the instant action, neither the district

of confinement nor the district of conviction is located within the venue of the Northern

District of California. Calipatria State Prison, where petitioner is confined, is located in

Case 2:08-cv-00963-MCE -KJN Document 4 Filed 05/02/08 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

2

Imperial County, which, in turn, is located within the venue of the Southern District of

California. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(d). Sacramento County, where petitioner was convicted, is

located within the venue of the Eastern District of California. See id. 

When venue is improper, the district court has the discretion to either dismiss the

action or transfer it “in the interest of justice.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). Accordingly, in the

interest of justice, the above-titled action is hereby TRANSFERRED to the United States

District Court for the Eastern District of California, the district in which Sacramento County,

the county wherein petitioner was convicted, is located. In light of the transfer, the Court

will defer to the Eastern District with respect to petitioner’s application to proceed in forma

pauperis and his motion to stay proceedings in this matter until he has exhausted his state

remedies.

The Clerk shall close the file and terminate all pending motions on this Court’s

docket. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 2, 2008 _______________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 2:08-cv-00963-MCE -KJN Document 4 Filed 05/02/08 Page 2 of 2