1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 OLSON, Case No. 23-cv-04219-RMI 4 Petitioner, ORDER OF TRANSFER 8 v. 9 , 10 Respondent. 11 12 This is a habeas case filed pro se by a prisoner. Petitioner challenges a conviction obtained 5 13 || in the Amador County Superior Court. Amador County is in the venue of the United States 14 || District Court for the Eastern District of California. Petitioner is also incarcerated in the Eastern 3 15 |} District. 16 Venue for a habeas action is proper in either the district of confinement or the district of 3 17 || conviction. See

(d). This district is neither. Petitions challenging a conviction are 18 || preferably heard in the district of conviction. See Habeas L.R. 2254-3(a); see also Laue v. Nelson, 19 ||

(N.D. Cal. 1968). Because Petitioner was convicted in the Eastern District, 20 and because he is also being held in that district, this case is TRANSFERRED to the United 21 States District Court for the Eastern District of Califomia. See

(a); Habeas L.R. 22 || 2254-3(b). 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 Dated: October 18, 2023 25 MT Z 26 7 ROBERT M. ILLMAN United States Magistrate Judge 28