1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ROBERT WELTON, Case No. 23-cv-02119-DMR (PR)

8 Petitioner, ORDER OF TRANSFER v. 9

10 BRYAN D. PHILLIPS, Acting Warden,1 Respondent. 11

12 Petitioner, a state prisoner who is incarcerated at the California State Prison - Corcoran has 13 filed this pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

, challenging the 14 validity of his conviction obtained in the Solano County Superior Court. Dkt. 1. He has not 15 completed his in forma pauperis application or paid the filing fee. Dkt. 3. 16 On May 1, 2023, the Clerk of the Court informed Petitioner that this action has been 17 assigned to the undersigned Magistrate Judge.2 Dkt. 4. 18 A petition for a writ of habeas corpus made by a person in custody under the judgment and 19 sentence of a state court of a State which contains two or more federal judicial districts may be 20 filed in either the district of confinement or the district of conviction. See

(d). 21 The district court where the petition is filed, however, may transfer the petition to the other district 22 in the furtherance of justice. See

Federal courts in California traditionally have chosen to hear 23 petitions challenging a conviction or sentence in the district of conviction. See Dannenberg v. 24 Ingle,

(N.D. Cal. 1993); Laue v. Nelson,

(N.D. Cal. 25 1 Bryan D. Phillips, the current acting warden of the prison where Petitioner is 26 incarcerated, has been substituted as Respondent pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 27 1 1968). If the petition is directed to the manner in which a sentence is being executed, e.g., if it 2 involves parole or time credits claims, the district of confinement is the preferable forum. See 3 Habeas L.R. 2254-3(a); Dunne v. Henman,

(9th Cir. 1989). 4 Here, Petitioner challenges a conviction and sentence incurred in the Solano County 5 Superior Court, which is within the venue of the Eastern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. 6 §84(c). Therefore, theUnited States District Court for the Eastern District of California has 7 jurisdiction over this matter. 8 Pursuant to

(a) and Habeas L.R. 2254-3(b), and in the interest of justice, 9 this action is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of 10 California.3 The Clerk shall transfer the case forthwith. 11 All remaining pending motions are TERMINATED on this court’s docket as no longer 12 pending in this district. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 Dated: June 7, 2023 15 DONNA M. RYU 16 Chief Magistrate Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 3 Venue transfer is a non-dispositive matter and, thus, it falls within the scope of the