Billie v. Gibson
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Linda Lopez (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se state prisoner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed in the Southern District of California. The court ordered the case transferred to the Central District of California, Western Division, as the more convenient forum where the conviction occurred.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Transfer of action to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division“IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court transfer this matter to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division.” | agree with court The order correctly identifies that jurisdiction exists in both the district of confinement and the district of conviction. It applies the well-established principle that the district of conviction is generally the more convenient forum for habeas petitions challenging a judgment of conviction due to the availability of records and witnesses. The transfer is supported by the cited authorities and the specific facts regarding the location of the conviction and the prisoner. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally correct and relies on the appropriate statutory and case law authorities to justify the transfer based on convenience and the location of the conviction records.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBERT LEE BILLIE, Case No.: 22cv778-LL-AHG 12 Petitioner, ORDER TRANSFERRING ACTION 13 v. TO UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL 14 CONNIE GIBSON, et al., DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, 15 Respondents. WESTERN DIVISION 16 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for writ of habeas 18 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254. Upon reviewing the petition, the Court finds that 19 this case should be transferred in the interest of justice. 20 A petition for writ of habeas corpus may be filed in the United States District Court 21 of either the judicial district in which the petitioner is presently confined or the judicial 22 district in which he was convicted and sentenced. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d); Braden v. 30th 23 Judicial Circuit Court, 410 U.S. 484, 497 (1973). Petitioner’s state court conviction 24 occurred in Santa Barbara County Superior Court, which is located within the jurisdictional 25 boundaries of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, 26 Western Division. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(c)(2). Petitioner is presently confined at Calipatria 27 State Prison, located in Imperial County, which is within the jurisdictional boundaries of 28 / / / 1 United States District Court for the Southern District of California. 28 U.S.C. § 84(d). 2 || Thus, jurisdiction exists in both the Central and Southern Districts. 3 When a habeas petitioner is challenging a judgment of conviction, the district court 4 || of the district in which the judgment of conviction was entered is a more convenient forum 5 || because of the accessibility of evidence, records, and witnesses. Thus, it is generally the 6 || practice of the district courts in California to transfer habeas actions questioning judgments 7 ||of conviction to the district in which the judgment was entered. Any and all records, 8 || witnesses, and evidence necessary for the resolution of Petitioner’s contentions are 9 || available in Santa Barbara County. See Braden, 410 U.S. at 497, 499 n.15 (stating that a 10 |/court can, of course, transfer habeas cases to the district of conviction which is ordinarily 11 |}a more convenient forum); Laue v. Nelson, 279 F. Supp. 265, 266 (N.D. Cal. 1968). 12 Therefore, in the furtherance of justice, IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of this 13 ||Court transfer this matter to the United States District Court for the Central District of 14 California, Western Division. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED 15 ||that the Clerk of this Court serve a copy of this Order upon Petitioner and upon the 16 || California Attorney General. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 Dated: June 1, 2022 NO 19 DE | 20 Honorable Linda Lopez 51 United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28