Davis v. Covello
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Gonzalo P. Curiel (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se state prisoner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed in the Southern District of California. The court ordered the case transferred to the Central District of California, Western Division, as the more convenient forum where the conviction occurred.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Transfer of action to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division“IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court transfer this matter to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division.” | agree with court The order correctly identifies that jurisdiction exists in both the district of confinement and the district of conviction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. It applies the well-established principle that the district of conviction is generally the more convenient forum for habeas petitions challenging judgments of conviction due to the location of records and witnesses. The transfer is supported by the cited authorities and the facts recited in the order. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally correct and relies on the appropriate statutory and case law authorities to justify the transfer. It clearly states the facts regarding the location of the conviction and the petitioner's confinement, and applies the standard convenience rationale for transfer.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WARREN DAVIS, Case No.: 19cv1487 GPC (BGS)
12 Petitioner, ORDER TRANSFERRING ACTION 13 v. TO UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL 14 COVELLO, Warden DISTRICT, WESTERN DIVISION 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for writ habeas 18 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254. Upon reviewing the petition, the Court finds that 19 this case should be transferred in the interest of justice. 20 A petition for writ of habeas corpus may be filed in the United States District Court 21 of either the judicial district in which the petitioner is presently confined or the judicial 22 district in which he was convicted and sentenced. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d); Braden v. 23 30th Judicial Circuit Court, 410 U.S. 484, 497 (1973). Petitioner’s state court conviction 24 occurred in Los Angeles County Superior Court, which is located within the 25 jurisdictional boundaries of the United States District Court for the Central District of 26 California, Western Division. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(c)(2). Petitioner is presently confined 27 at R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility, located in San Diego County, which is within the 28 jurisdictional boundaries of the United States District Court for the Southern District of 1 || California. 28 U.S.C. § 84(d). Thus, jurisdiction exists in both the Central and Southern 2 || Districts. 3 When a habeas petitioner is challenging a judgment of conviction, the district court 4 || of the district in which the judgment of conviction was entered is a more convenient 5 || forum because of the accessibility of evidence, records and witnesses. Thus, it is 6 || generally the practice of the district courts in California to transfer habeas actions 7 || questioning judgments of conviction to the district in which the judgment was entered. 8 || Any and all records, witnesses and evidence necessary for the resolution of Petitioner’s g || contentions are available in Los Angeles County. See Braden, 410 U.S. at 497, 499 n.15 10 || (stating that a court can, of course, transfer habeas cases to the district of conviction 11 || which is ordinarily a more convenient forum); Laue v. Nelson, 279 F. Supp. 265, 266 (N.D. Cal. 1968). 3 Therefore, in the furtherance of justice, IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court transfer this matter to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court serve a copy of this Order upon Petitioner and upon the California Attorney General.
18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 ||Dated: August 19, 2019 (2 apho Crk ) 30 Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28