Jones v. Atchley

District Court, S.D. California · 3:22-cv-00363 · 2022-03-18 · Unknown

Proceeding: district
Area: civil
Panel: Samuel P. King (author)

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt own-v1, 2026-10-13T22:35Z · confidence high

The court reviewed a federal habeas petition filed in the Northern District of California by a petitioner incarcerated in that district but convicted in the Southern District of California. The court ordered the petition transferred to the Southern District of California as the preferred venue for challenging a sentence.

What the court decided	The model
Transfer of the habeas petition to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California “Because San Diego County lies in the Southern District of California, the court ORDERS that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) and Habeas Local Rule 2254-3(b), and in the interest of justice, this petition be TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California.”	agree with court The court correctly identified that while venue is proper in the district of confinement, the district of conviction and sentencing is the preferred venue for challenges to a sentence. The order cites the relevant local rule and case law supporting this preference and applies 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to effectuate the transfer.

What the court decided

The model

Transfer of the habeas petition to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California

“Because San Diego County lies in the Southern District of California, the court ORDERS that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) and Habeas Local Rule 2254-3(b), and in the interest of justice, this petition be TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California.”

agree with court
The court correctly identified that while venue is proper in the district of confinement, the district of conviction and sentencing is the preferred venue for challenges to a sentence. The order cites the relevant local rule and case law supporting this preference and applies 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to effectuate the transfer.

The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the venue options under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d), applies the local rule preference for the district of conviction, and uses 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) as the mechanism for transfer. The reasoning is concise and directly addresses the motion.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 RONNIE JONES, G35507, Case No. 22-cv-01681-SK (PR) 7 Petitioner, y. ORDER OF TRANSFER 9 M. ATCHLEY, Warden, 10 Respondent. 11 Petitioner seeks federal habeas review of a sentence from San Diego County Superior 12 Court, which lies within the venue of the Southern District of California. See 28 U.S.C.§ 84(d). 5 13 || Petitioner is incarcerated at Salinas Valley State Prison in Monterey County, which lies within the S 14 venue of the Northern District of California. See id. § 84(a). 3 15 Venue is proper in a habeas action in either the district of confinement or the district of 16 || conviction and sentencing, see 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d); however, petitions challenging a conviction 5 17. || and/or sentence (as opposed to petitions challenging the execution of a sentence) preferably are 18 || heard in the district of conviction and sentencing. See Habeas L.R. 2254-3(a); Dannenberg v. 19 || Ingle, 831 F. Supp. 767, 767 (N.D. Cal. 1993). 20 Because San Diego County lies in the Southern District of California, the court ORDERS 71 that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) and Habeas Local Rule 2254-3(b), and in the interest of 22 || justice, this petition be TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Southern 23 || District of California. 24 The clerk shall transfer this matter forthwith. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: March 18, 2022 . . 27 Attien (rw SALLIE KIM 28 United States Magistrate Judge