(HC) Rodriguez v. Fisher

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA PEDRO RODRIGUEZ, Case No. 1:21-cv-01173-SAB-HC 12 Petitioner, ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE 13 v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WARDEN FISHER, CALIFORNIA 15 Respondent.

17 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

19 When a state prisoner files a habeas petition in a state that contains two or more federal judicial districts, the petition may be filed in either the judicial district in which the petitioner is presently confined or the judicial district in which he was convicted and sentenced. See 28 22 U.S.C. § 2241(d); Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 442 (2004) (quoting Carbo v. United States, 364 U.S. 611, 618, 81 S. Ct. 338, 5 L. Ed. 2d 329 (1961)). Petitions challenging the execution of a sentence are preferably heard in the district where the inmate is confined. See Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989). Petitions challenging convictions or sentences are preferably heard in the district of conviction. See Laue v. Nelson, 279 F. Supp. 27 265, 266 (N.D. Cal. 1968). Section 2241 further states that, rather than dismissing an improperly | transfer” the habeas petition to another federal district for hearing and determination. Id.; see also | 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (court may transfer any civil action “to any other district or division where it | might have been brought” for convenience of parties or “in the interest of justice”).

4 Here, Petitioner challenges a criminal judgment from the San Diego County Superior | Court. Therefore, venue is proper in the district of conviction, which is the Southern District of | California.

7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is TRANSFERRED to the | United States District Court for the Southern District of California.

10 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAM Le | Dated: _August 4, 2021 _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE