Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-05492/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-05492-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Connie Gipson
Defendant
Zane Hubbard
Plaintiff

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ZANE HUBBARD,

Petitioner,

v.

CONNIE GIPSON,

Respondent.

Case No. 19-cv-05492-RS (PR) 

ORDER OF TRANSFER

This federal habeas action, in which petitioner challenges convictions he received in 

the Kern County Superior Court, is TRANSFERRED to the Eastern District of California, 

as that is the district of conviction.1 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a), 2241(d); Habeas L.R. 2254-

3(b). The Clerk shall transfer this action forthwith. 

Even if the action were to remain in this district, it would have to be dismissed as a 

second or successive petition that has not been authorized by the Court of Appeals. See

28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). A prior federal habeas petition directed to the same 

convictions was denied on the merits. Hubbard v. Gipson, 1:13-cv-01758-LJO-JLT (E.D. 

 

1 Petitioner filed this suit in the District of Columbia, which transferred the action here 

because petitioner is imprisoned in this district. (Order of Transfer, Dkt. No. 3.) 

Challenges to criminal convictions should be heard in the district of conviction, however. 

28 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a), 2241(d); Habeas L.R. 2254-3(b). 

Case 3:19-cv-05492-RS Document 11 Filed 10/01/19 Page 1 of 2
ORDER OF TRANSFER

CASE NO. 19-cv-05492-RS

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Cal. 2016). 

It appears petitioner also challenges prison disciplinary decisions he acquired at 

Corcoran State Prison, Wasco State Prison, and CSP-Sacramento, all of which are located 

in the Eastern District. (Pet., Dkt. No. 1 at 9-11.) Because these disciplinary decisions 

were taken in the Eastern District, any federal suits directed against them would have to be 

filed in that district. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October ___, 2019

_________________________

 RICHARD SEEBORG

 United States District Judge

1

Case 3:19-cv-05492-RS Document 11 Filed 10/01/19 Page 2 of 2