(HC) Barkacs v. Goodwin
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se state prisoner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed in the Eastern District of California, where the petitioner is incarcerated, but which challenges a conviction from the Southern District of California. The court ordered the case transferred to the Southern District of California, San Diego Division, for convenience and in the interest of justice.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Transfer of case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, San Diego Division“The Clerk of Court shall transfer this action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, San Diego Division.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that both districts have concurrent jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d) because the petitioner is incarcerated in the Eastern District but was convicted in the Southern District. The court then applied 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which allows transfer for the convenience of parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice. Citing local practice and precedent (Favor v. California; Laue v. Nelson) that federal courts in California generally hear habeas petitions in the district of conviction, the court exercised its discretion to transfer the case to the Southern District. This is a standard and legally sound application of the transfer statute to a habeas corpus case where the district of conviction is available and appropriate. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally correct and cites the appropriate statutes and case law to support the transfer. It clearly identifies the basis for concurrent jurisdiction and the discretionary factors for transfer. The reliance on local practice and precedent for preferring the district of conviction is standard in this circuit. There are no significant gaps or questionable reasoning.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAMES ROBERT BARKACS, 1:22-cv-00986 BAK (HBK) 12 Petitioner, ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE 13 v. SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 14 GOODWIN, et al., (Doc. No. 1) 15 Respondent. 16 17 18 19 Petitioner James Robert Barkacs is proceeding pro se on his petition for writ of habeas 20 corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on August 9, 2022. (Doc. No. 1). Barkacs is a state 21 prisoner incarcerated at Pleasant Valley Prison, Coalinga, California, which is within the 22 jurisdiction and venue of this Court’s Fresno Division. (Id. at 1). Barkacs challenges his April 6, 23 2005 state sentence and conviction entered by the Superior Court of San Diego, which is located 24 within the jurisdiction and venue of the San Diego Division of the United States District Court for 25 the Southern District of California. (Id. at 2). 26 Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d), jurisdiction is proper in the judicial district where the 27 petitioner was convicted or where the petitioner is incarcerated. Therefore, both the Southern 28 District of California and the Eastern District of California have concurrent jurisdiction. See 28 1 | ULS.C. § 2241(d); Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 428 (2004). However, “[f]or the 2 | convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any 3 || civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 4 | 1404(a). Federal courts in California generally hear petitions for writ of habeas corpus in the 5 | district of conviction. Favor v. California, No. 116-CV-01912-DAD-EPG-HC, 2017 WL 6 | 2671006, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 21, 2017) (citing Laue v. Nelson, 279 F. Supp. 265, 266 (N.D. 7 | Cal. 1968). Thus, the Court finds in its discretion “‘and in furtherance of justice” the petition 8 || should be transferred to the Southern District of California. 28 U.S.C. $§ 1404(a), 2241(d). 9 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED: 10 The Clerk of Court shall transfer this action to the United States District Court for the 11 | Southern District of California, San Diego Division. 12 'S | Dated: _ August 22, 2022 Mile. Wh. foareh Zaskth 14 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28