1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TROY T. SHERMAN, JR., No. 1:25-cv-00158-SKO (HC) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE SACRAMENTO DIVISION OF THE UNITED 14 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CALIFORNIA, EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 15 Respondent. 16

17 On January 29, 2025, Petitioner filed a habeas corpus action pursuant to

18 in the Northern District of California. Because the district court determined that venue is proper 19 in the Eastern District, the petition was transferred and received in this Court. 20 The federal venue statute requires that a civil action, other than one based on diversity 21 jurisdiction, be brought only in “(1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all 22 defendants reside in the same state, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events 23 or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of the property that is the 24 subject of the action is situated, or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant may be found, if 25 there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought.”

(b). 26 Here, Petitioner is challenging his conviction from Placer County, which is in the 27 Sacramento Division of the Eastern District of California. Venue is therefore proper in the 28 1 Sacramento Division, and the petition should have been filed there. In the interest of justice, a 2 federal court may transfer a case filed in the wrong district to the correct district. See

1406(a); Starnes v. McGuire,

(D.C. Cir. 1974). 4 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that this matter is transferred to the Sacramento 5 Division of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7

8 Dated: February 10, 2025 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28