Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00588/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00588-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tina Hornbeck
Respondent
Rhonda Lee Leland
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

RHONDA LEE LELAND, 1:07-cv-00588-AWI-TAG HC

Petitioner, ORDER OF TRANSFER 

vs.

TINA HORNBECK, Warden, 

Respondent.

 /

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

28 U.S.C. § 2254, in the Fresno Division of the United States District Court for the Eastern District

of California. 

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). Where a petitioner attacks the execution of his sentence, the

proper forum in which to review such a claim is the district of confinement. See Dunne 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.”)

Case 1:07-cv-00588-AWI-TAG Document 6 Filed 05/10/07 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

In this case, petitioner is challenging a conviction from Shasta County (Doc. 1, p. 1), which is

in the Sacramento Division of the Eastern District of California. Therefore, the matter should be

addressed in the forum where petitioner was convicted. Thus, the petition should have been filed in

the Sacramento Division of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. 

Pursuant to Local Rule 3-120(f), a civil action which has not been commenced in the proper division

of a court may, on the court’s own motion, be transferred to the proper division of the court. 

Therefore, this action will be transferred to the Sacramento Division of this Court.

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. This action is transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of

California sitting in Sacramento; and,

2. All future filings shall reference the new Sacramento case number assigned and shall be

filed at:

United States District Court

Eastern District of California

501 “I” Street, Suite 4-200

Sacramento, CA 95814

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 8, 2007 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:07-cv-00588-AWI-TAG Document 6 Filed 05/10/07 Page 2 of 2