1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 RHONDA FLEMING Case No. 22-cv-04195 NC (PR)

12 Petitioner, ORDER OF TRANSFER

13 v.

14 WARDEN JUSINO, 15 Respondent. 16 17 This federal habeas action, in which petitioner is challenging “the validity of [her] 18 conviction or sentence,” Dkt. No. 1 at 2, is TRANSFERRED to the United States District 19 Court for the Southern District of Texas, as that is the district of conviction. See 28 U.S.C. 20 §§ 1404(a), 2241(d); Habeas L.R. 2254-3(b). 21 Under limited circumstances, a prisoner may use

to collaterally 22 attack a conviction or sentence. See

(e) (known as the “escape hatch” 23 provision). However, this “escape hatch” only applies when the prisoner “(1) makes a 24 claim of actual innocence, and (2) has not had an unobstructed procedural shot at 25 presenting that claim.” Marrero v. Ives,

(9th Cir. 2012).

26 1 2 Here, petitioner argues not that she needs to proceed under the “escape hatch,” but 3 rather that her conviction is unconstitutional based on an intervening change in the law. 4 See Pet. at 2. Accordingly, the instant petition properly should be filed before the United 5 States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, and/or the United States Court of 6 Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. See

(h)(2) (providing that a petitioner may 7 seek permission from “the appropriate court of appeals” to file “[a] second or successive 8 motion” for relief from conviction, based on “a new rule of constitutional law, made 9 retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously 10 unavailable”). 11 The Clerk is directed to transfer this matter forthwith. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 DATED: July 27, 2022 NATHANAEL M. COUSINS 14 United States Magistrate Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26