Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01274/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01274-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Henry Lee Graves
Petitioner
Anthony Kane
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HENRY LEE GRAVES,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-06-1274 LKK DAD P 

vs.

ANTHONY KANE,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In 2002, petitioner was found suitable for parole. In a

petition lodged in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on June 9,

2004, petitioner challenges the governor’s reversal of the finding of parole suitability. By order

filed May 12, 2006, the fully briefed and submitted petition was transferred to the United States

District Court for the Eastern District of California, where petitioner is now confined.

The statute that governs the power of federal courts to grant a writ of habeas

corpus contains the following provision concerning the proper forum for federal habeas petitions

filed by state prisoners:

/////

/////

Case 2:06-cv-01274-LKK -DAD Document 5 Filed 02/14/07 Page 1 of 4
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

2

Where an application for a writ of habeas corpus is made by

a person in custody under the judgment and sentence of a State

court of a State which contains two or more Federal judicial

districts, the application may be filed in the district court for the

district wherein such person is in custody or in the district court for

the district within which the State court was held which convicted

and sentenced him and each of such district courts shall have

concurrent jurisdiction to entertain the application. The district

court for the district wherein 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.

28 U.S.C. § 2241(d).

Here, petitioner was convicted and sentenced in Los Angeles County. The United

States District Court for the Central District of California is the district within which the state

court was held which convicted and sentenced petitioner. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(c). Accordingly,

the Central District court may entertain the habeas petition filed in that court in June 2004. 

When petitioner filed his habeas petition, he was confined in a state prison in Soledad, which is

located in Monterey County. The district court for the district wherein petitioner was confined at

the relevant time is the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Thus,

the Northern District court had concurrent jurisdiction to entertain petitioner’s habeas petition

when it was filed. Petitioner was not confined within the Eastern District of California when the

petition was filed, and this court does not have concurrent jurisdiction over the petition. 

Petitioner elected to file his federal habeas petition in the district court for the

district within which he was convicted and sentenced, as permitted by 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). See

Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484, 497 (1973) (reiterating that a

state prisoner in a state which contains two or more federal judicial districts “has the option of

seeking habeas corpus either in the district where he is confined or the district where the

sentencing court is located”). By statute, the United States District Court for the Central District

of California, the district in which petitioner was convicted and sentenced was authorized, “in the

exercise of its discretion and in furtherance of justice,” to transfer the petition to the district court

Case 2:06-cv-01274-LKK -DAD Document 5 Filed 02/14/07 Page 2 of 4
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

 The undersigned believes that as a matter of policy the four federal judicial districts in 1

California are now following a presumptive rule that the proper venue for habeas petitions

challenging state parole denials will be in the district of the petitioner’s incarceration at the time the

petition is filed rather than the district of conviction. However, in this case petitioner elected to file

his petition in the district of conviction. The United States District Court for the Central District of

California proceeded with the matter and the case was fully briefed and submitted for decision to

that court back on November 5, 2004. The transfer to this court did not occur until over eighteen

months after the petition was taken under submission for decision. Under these circumstances,

transfer to the United States District Court for the Central District of California is appropriate. 

3

for the district in which petitioner was confined when he filed his petition. The “other district

court” having concurrent jurisdiction over the petition pursuant to statute is the United States

District Court for the Northern District of California.

Because petitioner is no longer confined within the Northern District, it does not

appear that transfer to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California

would be in furtherance of justice. Accordingly, the petition will be transferred back to the 1

district within which petitioner was convicted and sentenced. See 28 U.S.C. 1406(a) (“The

district court of a district in which is filed a case laying venue in the wrong division or district

shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or division in

which it could have been brought.”). Cf. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (“For the convenience of parties

and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other

district or division where it might have been brought.”).

The motion for appointment of counsel filed by petitioner in this court will be

denied without prejudice.

IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s August 22, 2006 motion to appoint counsel is denied without

prejudice; and

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:06-cv-01274-LKK -DAD Document 5 Filed 02/14/07 Page 3 of 4
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

4

2. This matter is transferred to the United States District Court for the Central

District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1406(a) and 2241(d).

DATED: February 13, 2007.

DAD:13

grav1274.108

Case 2:06-cv-01274-LKK -DAD Document 5 Filed 02/14/07 Page 4 of 4