(HC) Rodriguez v. Fisher
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- On appeal
- Pedro Rodriguez v. Fisher (2024-03-22) — affirmed — the Ninth Circuit's later ruling on this docket
- Panel
- Stanley Albert Boone (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se habeas corpus petition filed in the Eastern District of California that challenged a conviction from San Diego County. The court ordered the case transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Transfer of case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that the venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), requires habeas petitions to be filed in the district where the conviction occurred or where the defendant resides. Since the petitioner is challenging a San Diego County conviction, the Southern District of California is the proper venue. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), a court with jurisdiction may transfer a case to the district where it should have been brought. The application of the law to the facts is correct. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the venue statute and the transfer statute to the specific facts of the case. It identifies the proper district based on the location of the conviction and cites the appropriate statutory authority for the transfer. The reasoning is direct and legally sound.
Opinion
1 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-01172-SKO (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE 13 v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF 14 FISHER, CALIFORNIA 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a habeas corpus action pursuant to 18 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 19 The federal venue statute requires that a civil action, other than one based on diversity 20 jurisdiction, be brought only in “(1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants 21 are residents of the State in which the district is located, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial 22 part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of the property 23 that is the subject of the action is situated, or (3) if there is no district in which an action may 24 otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any judicial district in which any defendant is 25 subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 26 In this case, the petitioner is challenging a conviction from San Diego County, which is in 27 the Southern District of California. Therefore, the petition should have been filed in the United 28 States District Court for the Southern District of California. In the interest of justice, a federal court 1 may transfer a case filed in the wrong district to the correct district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); 2 Starnes v. McGuire, 512 F.2d 918, 932 (D.C. Cir. 1974). 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the United States 4 District Court for the Southern District of California. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 7 Dated: August 9, 2021 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28