1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 NICOLE MARIE ADAMIK, Case No. 24-cv-04174-RMI 8 Petitioner, ORDER OF TRANSFER 9 v. 10 SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY SHERIFF DEPUTY PRICE, et al., Respondents. 12

13 This is a habeas case filed pro se by a prisoner. Petitioner challenges a parole revocation 14 || and ongoing criminal prosecution, both in San Joaquin County. San Joaquin County is in the 3 15 || venue of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. Petitioner is also a 16 || incarcerated in the Eastern District. 3 17 Venue for a habeas action is proper in either the district of confinement or the district of 18 || conviction. See

(d). This district is neither. Petitions challenging a conviction are 19 || preferably heard in the district of conviction. See Habeas L.R. 2254-3(a); see also Laue v. Nelson, 20 ||

(N.D. Cal. 1968). Because Petitioner’s parole was revoked in the Eastern 21 District, and he is being prosecuted and being held in that district, this case is TRANSFERRED 22 to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. See

(a); 23 || Habeas L.R. 2254-3(b). 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: July 18, 2024 26 Me Z 27 28 ROBERT M. ILLMAN United States Magistrate Judge