Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01514/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01514-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Terry Dewayne Lee
Petitioner
On Habeas Corpus
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TERRY DEWAYNE LEE,

Petitioner, 

v.

On Habeas Corpus,

Respondent.

 /

1:12-cv-01514 MJS (HC)

ORDER GRANTING TRANSFER OF

CASE TO THE UNITED STATES

DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL

DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (Doc. 11)

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

On September 7, 2012, Petitioner filed the instant petition with the Court. (Pet., ECF

No. 1.) Respondent was ordered to respond to the Petition on September 20, 2012, and did

so by way of filing a request to transfer the matter to the United States District Court, Central

District of California. (Order, Request to Transfer, ECF Nos. 7, 11.) For the reasons discussed

below, the request to transfer the petition is GRANTED. 

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

-1-

Case 1:12-cv-01514-MJS Document 17 Filed 01/02/13 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

found, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 

1391(b).

However, venue for a habeas action is proper in either the district of confinement or the

district of conviction. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). The district court for the district where such an

application is filed in the exercise of its discretion and in furtherance of justice may transfer the

application to the other district court for hearing and determination. Id. 

It is preferable for petitions challenging a conviction or sentence to be heard in the

district of conviction while petitions challenging the manner in which the sentence is being

executed be heard in the district of confinement. Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th

Cir. 1989). In this case, as Respondent correctly notes, Petitioner is challenging the judgment

relating to his conviction in Orange County, California. As Orange County is located in the

Central District of California, all of the material events, records, and witnesses are located in

that district. In the interest of justice, the petition will be transferred to the United States District

Court for the Central District of California. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a) and 2241(d).

The Court notes that there also is a pending November 26, 2012, motion by Petitioner

for appointment of counsel. The Court shall reserve judgment on the motion in light of the

pending transfer of the matter. 

ORDER 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Respondent's motion to transfer the matter to the United States District Court

for the Central District of California is GRANTED.

2. The Court reserves judgment on Petitioner's motion to appoint counsel. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 27, 2012 /s/Michael J. Seng 

ci4d6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-2-

Case 1:12-cv-01514-MJS Document 17 Filed 01/02/13 Page 2 of 2