(HC) Rodriguez v. Fisher
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Stanley Albert Boone (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a habeas corpus petition filed in the Eastern District of California challenging 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“Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that this matter is transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California.” | agree with court The petitioner is challenging a conviction from San Diego County, which is located in the Southern District of California. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), venue is proper in the district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred. Since the conviction occurred in San Diego, the Southern District of California is the proper venue. The court correctly applied 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) to transfer the case to the proper district rather than dismissing it. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the proper venue based on the location of the underlying conviction and applies the correct statutory provisions for transfer. The reasoning is concise and directly addresses the motion to transfer.
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-01191-JLT (HC) ) 12 Petitioner, ) ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 13 v. ) SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) 14 WARDEN FISHER, ) 15 Respondent. ) ) 16 )
17 The federal venue statute requires that a civil action, other than one based on diversity 18 jurisdiction, be brought only in “(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants 19 are residents of the State in which the district is located, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial 20 part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is 21 the subject of the action is situated, or (3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be 22 brought as provided in this section, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s 23 personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 24 In this case, the petitioner is challenging a conviction from San Diego County, which is in the 25 Southern District of California. Therefore, the petition should have been filed in the United States 26 District Court for the Southern District of California. In the interest of justice, a federal court may 27 transfer a case filed in the wrong district to the correct district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); Starnes v. 28 McGuire, 512 F.2d 918, 932 (D.C. Cir. 1974). Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that this matter is 1 transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. 2 3 IT IS SO ORDERED.
4 Dated: August 10, 2021 _ /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 5 CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28