Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00350/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00350-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Frederick Brinkley
Petitioner
Ben Curry
Respondent

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

N:\MJJ\Week of 7.16.07\brinkley.trn.wpd

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FREDERICK BRINKLEY,

Petitioner,

v.

BEN CURRY, Warden, 

Respondent. _____________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-0350 MJJ (PR)

ORDER OF TRANSFER

(Docket Nos. 2 & 4)

Petitioner, a California prisoner, has filed this pro se petition for a writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging a conviction and sentenced obtained in

1983 in the Superior Court for the County of Sacramento. 

 Venue for a habeas action is proper in either the district of confinement or the

district of conviction, 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d); although petitions challenging a conviction are

preferably heard in the district of conviction. See Habeas L.R. 2254-3(a); Laue v. Nelson,

279 F. Supp. 265, 266 (N.D. Cal. 1968); cf. Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th

Cir. 1989) (district of confinement best forum to review execution of sentence). The

venue for Sacramento County, where petitioner was convicted, is the United States

District Court for the Eastern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(b). 

Because venue is preferred in the Eastern District, this case is TRANSFERRED to

Case 3:07-cv-00350-MJJ Document 7 Filed 07/17/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

N:\MJJ\Week of 7.16.07\brinkley.trn.wpd 2

the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. §

1404(a); Habeas L.R. 2254-3(b). In light of this transfer, this Court will defer to the

Eastern District for a ruling on the motion for appointment of counsel.

 In light of petitioner’s payment of the filing fee, the application for leave to

proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED as moot. 

The Clerk shall transfer this matter forthwith, and terminate Docket Nos. 2 & 4

from this Court’s docket. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: MARTIN J. JENKINS

United States District Judge 

Case 3:07-cv-00350-MJJ Document 7 Filed 07/17/07 Page 2 of 2