Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00590/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00590-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Matthew Cate
Respondent
Dwight Martin
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DWIGHT MARTIN,

Petitioner, 

vs.

MATTHEW CATE,

Respondent.

 /

1:10-cv-00423-JLT (HC)

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA,

SACRAMENTO DIVISION

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

U.S.C. § 2254, in which he challenges a prison disciplinary action.

Petitioner has not paid the $5.00 filing fee or submitted an application to proceed in forma

pauperis for this action.

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). In this case, petitioner challenges the result of a prison

-1-

Case 2:10-cv-00590-JKS Document 4 Filed 03/15/10 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

disciplinary proceeding which occurred in California Medical Facility, Vacaville, California, which

is located in the Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division. Whereas here the petitioner

attacks the execution of his sentence, as opposed to an attack on the conviction itself, the 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."). Petitioner is confined in

California Medical Facility located in the Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division. 

Therefore, the petition should have been filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of California, Sacramento Division. 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 this matter is transferred to the United States

District Court for the Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 10, 2010 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

9j7khi UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

-2-

Case 2:10-cv-00590-JKS Document 4 Filed 03/15/10 Page 2 of 2