(HC) Jones v. High Desert State Prison
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Stanley Albert Boone (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a habeas corpus petition filed by a prisoner incarcerated in the Eastern District of California but convicted in the Southern District of California. The court ordered the case transferred to the Southern District of California and directed the clerk to provide the petitioner with a civil rights complaint form.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Transfer of habeas corpus action to the Southern District of California“Thus, the Court finds in its discretion “and in furtherance of Justice” the petition should be transferred to the Southern District of California. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a), 2241(d).” | agree with court The court correctly identified that while venue is proper in the district of incarceration under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d), 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) permits transfer for convenience. The court cited the local practice in California federal courts to hear habeas petitions in the district of conviction, supported by *Favor v. California* and *Laue v. Nelson*. Transferring to the district of conviction is a standard and appropriate exercise of discretion to centralize the review of the state court record. |
Direction to Clerk to provide civil rights complaint form“Thus, the Court will direct the Clerk of Court to send petitioner a civil rights complaint form for filing, should he choose to do so, in the court with jurisdiction to consider those claims.” | agree with court The court noted the petition appeared to contain 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims. Providing a form is a procedural administrative step to assist a pro se litigant in properly filing a separate civil rights action, which is distinct from the habeas petition. This is a reasonable administrative order. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the statutory basis for transfer under § 1404(a) and the venue rules under § 2241(d). It relies on established local practice and case law to justify the transfer to the district of conviction, which is the standard approach in California federal courts to ensure the reviewing court has ready access to the state court record. The additional order regarding the civil rights form is a helpful procedural step for a pro se litigant.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WAYNE E. JONES, Case No. 1:23-cv-00631-HBK (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 v. (Doc. No. 1) 14 HIGH DESERT STATE PRISON, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO PROVIDE 15 Respondent. PETITIONER WITH CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT FORM 16 17 Petitioner is proceeding on his petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 18 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 1). Petitioner, a prisoner incarcerated in Lassen County, which is 19 located within the jurisdiction and venue of this court’s Sacramento Division, challenges his 20 conviction entered by the Superior Court of San Diego, which is located within the jurisdiction 21 and venue of the San Diego Division of the United States District Court for the Southern District 22 of California. 23 Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d), jurisdiction is proper in the judicial district where the 24 petitioner was convicted or where the petitioner is incarcerated. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d); 25 Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 428 (2004). However, “[f]or the convenience of parties and 26 witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other 27 district or division where it might have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Federal courts in 28 California generally hear petitions for writ of habeas corpus in the district of conviction. Favor v. 1 California, No. 116-CV-01912-DAD-EPG-HC, 2017 WL 2671006, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 21, 2 | 2017) (citing Laue v. Nelson, 279 F. Supp. 265, 266 (N.D. Cal. 1968). 3 Thus, the Court finds in its discretion “and in furtherance of Justice” the petition should 4 | be transferred to the Southern District of California. 28 U.S.C. $§ 1404(a), 2241(d). Further, the 5 || petition appears to assert additional civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Thus, the Court 6 | will direct the Clerk of Court to send petitioner a civil rights complaint form for filing, should he 7 | choose to do so, in the court with jurisdiction to consider those claims. 8 Accordingly: 9 1. The Clerk shall transfer this habeas action to the United States District Court for the 10 | Southern District of California, San Diego Division; and 11 2. All future filings shall reference the new case number assigned and shall be filed at: 12 United States District Court 13 Southern District of California San Diego Division 14 333 West Broadway 5 San Diego, CA 92101 16 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to send Petitioner a civil rights complaint form. 17 18 Dated: _ April 26, 2023 Nebo Th. foareh Zaskth 19 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28