Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00614/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00614-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
I. D. Clay
Respondent
Gilbert Rios
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 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GILBERT RIOS, 1:07-CV-0614-OWW-TAG HC

Petitioner, 

vs.

I. D. CLAY, 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 (Doc. 1), together with a request to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1915. (Doc. 2). 

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 Riverside County, which is in the

Central District of California. (Doc. 1, p. 1). Therefore, the petition should have been filed in the

United States District Court for the Central 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).

///

Case 1:07-cv-00614-OWW -TAG Document 4 Filed 05/30/07 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the United States

District Court for the Central District of California. This court has not ruled on petitioner's request

to proceed in forma pauperis.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 29, 2007 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:07-cv-00614-OWW -TAG Document 4 Filed 05/30/07 Page 2 of 2