(HC) Rodriguez v. Fisher
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Stanley Albert Boone (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se state prisoner's habeas corpus petition filed in the Eastern District of California that challenged a criminal judgment from the San Diego County Superior Court. The court ordered the case transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California as the proper venue.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Transfer of case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California“Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California.” | agree with court The court correctly applied 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The order recites that the petitioner challenges a criminal judgment from San Diego County, which falls within the Southern District of California. Under the cited authorities, venue for a habeas petition challenging a conviction or sentence is proper in the district of conviction. Therefore, the transfer to the Southern District of California is the legally required outcome. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the legal standard for venue in habeas corpus cases and applies it to the specific facts recited (a challenge to a San Diego County judgment). The reasoning is concise and directly supports the transfer order.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
inconsistent with cited authorityOpinion
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PEDRO RODRIGUEZ, Case No. 1:21-cv-01173-SAB-HC 12 Petitioner, ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE 13 v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF 14 WARDEN FISHER, CALIFORNIA 15 Respondent.
16 17 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 18 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 19 When a state prisoner files a habeas petition in a state that contains two or more federal 20 judicial districts, the petition may be filed in either the judicial district in which the petitioner is 21 presently confined or the judicial district in which he was convicted and sentenced. See 28 22 U.S.C. § 2241(d); Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 442 (2004) (quoting Carbo v. United 23 States, 364 U.S. 611, 618, 81 S. Ct. 338, 5 L. Ed. 2d 329 (1961)). Petitions challenging the 24 execution of a sentence are preferably heard in the district where the inmate is confined. See 25 Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989). Petitions challenging convictions or 26 sentences are preferably heard in the district of conviction. See Laue v. Nelson, 279 F. Supp. 27 265, 266 (N.D. Cal. 1968). Section 2241 further states that, rather than dismissing an improperly 1 | transfer” the habeas petition to another federal district for hearing and determination. Id.; see also 2 | 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (court may transfer any civil action “to any other district or division where it 3 | might have been brought” for convenience of parties or “in the interest of justice”). 4 Here, Petitioner challenges a criminal judgment from the San Diego County Superior 5 | Court. Therefore, venue is proper in the district of conviction, which is the Southern District of 6 | California. 7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is TRANSFERRED to the 8 | United States District Court for the Southern District of California. 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAM Le 11 | Dated: _August 4, 2021 _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28