Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-01786/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-01786-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Steven Wayne Bonilla
Plaintiff
Madera County
Defendant

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN WAYNE BONILLA,

Plaintiff,

v.

MADERA COUNTY,

Defendant.

No. 2:18-cv-2548 DB P

ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has neither filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1915 nor paid the filing fee for this action.

In this case, plaintiff names Madera County as a defendant. However, it appears he is 

challenging the fact or duration of his confinement at San Quentin State Prison pursuant to a 

capital murder conviction. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff was convicted in Alameda County, which is in 

the Northern District of California. People v. Bonilla, 41 Cal. 4th 313 (2007).

To the extent plaintiff is raising claims which would be cognizable in a habeas corpus 

action under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, courts in both the district of conviction and the district of 

confinement have concurrent jurisdiction over applications for habeas corpus filed by state 

prisoners. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d); see also Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court, 410 U.S. 484 

(1973). In this case, because the county of conviction is located within the boundaries of the 

Case 3:19-cv-01786-VC Document 8 Filed 03/29/19 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

Northern District of California and because the place of incarceration is also located in the 

Northern District of California, that court is the proper venue to hear the matter under § 2254. 

The federal venue statute provides that a civil action “may be brought in (1) a judicial 

district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the 

district is located, (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 property that is the subject of the action 

is situated, or (3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in 

this action, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s personal 

jurisdiction with respect to such action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 

In this case, the claim arose in Alameda County, which is in the Northern District of 

California. Therefore, plaintiff’s claim should have been filed in the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of California. In the interest of justice, a federal court may transfer a 

complaint 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).

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

States District Court for the Northern District of California.

Dated: March 28, 2019

DLB:12

DLB:1/Orders/Prisoner/Civil.Rights/boni2548.21a

Case 3:19-cv-01786-VC Document 8 Filed 03/29/19 Page 2 of 2