(HC) Aguilar v. Cates
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
Analysis
The court reviewed a habeas corpus petition filed by a prisoner incarcerated in the Eastern District of California but convicted in the Southern District of California. The court ordered the case transferred to the Southern District of California, San Diego Division, for convenience and in the interest of justice.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Transfer of case to the Southern District of California“Thus, the court finds in its discretion “and in furtherance of justice” the petition should be transferred to the Southern District of California.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that both districts had concurrent jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). It then applied the transfer statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which allows transfer for the convenience of parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice. The court cited local practice and case law (Favor v. California) supporting the proposition that habeas petitions are generally heard in the district of conviction. Given that the conviction occurred in San Diego (S.D. Cal.) and the transfer was to that district, the decision follows standard federal procedure for habeas cases. |
The order itself: sound with gaps — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the concurrent jurisdiction under § 2241(d) and applies § 1404(a) to transfer the case to the district of conviction, which is the standard practice for state prisoner habeas cases to ensure access to witnesses and records. The citation to Rumsfeld v. Padilla is slightly imprecise as Padilla primarily deals with the scope of habeas review for enemy combatants rather than venue/jurisdiction mechanics, but the statutory citations are correct and the outcome is standard.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MIGUEL C. AGUILAR, Case No. 1:21-cv-00752-HBK 12 Petitioner, ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 v. (Doc. No. 1) 14 B. CATES, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner is proceeding on his petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 18 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 1). Petitioner, a prisoner incarcerated in Kern County, which is located 19 within the jurisdiction and venue of this court’s Fresno Division, challenges his April 20, 2017 20 state sentence and conviction entered by the Superior Court of San Diego, which is located within 21 the jurisdiction and venue of the San Diego Division of the United States District Court for the 22 Southern District of California. 23 Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d), jurisdiction is proper in the judicial district where the 24 petitioner was convicted or where the petitioner is incarcerated. Therefore, both the Southern 25 District of California and the Eastern District of California have concurrent jurisdiction. See 28 26 U.S.C. § 2241(d); Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 428 (2004). However, “[f]or the 27 convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any 28 civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1 | 1404(a). Federal courts in California generally hear petitions for writ of habeas corpus in the 2 | district of conviction. Favor v. California, No. 116-CV-01912-DAD-EPG-HC, 2017 WL 3 | 2671006, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 21, 2017) (citing Laue v. Nelson, 279 F. Supp. 265, 266 (N.D. 4 | Cal. 1968). 5 Thus, the court finds in its discretion “and in furtherance of justice” the petition should be 6 || transferred to the Southern District of California. 28 U.S.C. $§ 1404(a), 2241(d). 7 Accordingly: 8 1. The Clerk shall transfer this action to the United States District Court for the Southern 9 | District of California, San Diego Division; and 10 2. All future filings shall reference the new case number assigned and shall be filed at: 11 United States District Court 12 Southern District of California San Diego Division 13 333 West Broadway San Diego, CA 92101 14 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 Dated: _ May 12, 2021 Mila Nh. fareh Zackte 18 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28