Opinion
No. 09-5154.
Filed On: June 24, 2009.
BEFORE: Sentelle, Chief Judge, and Ginsburg and Tatel, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
Upon consideration of the petition for a writ of mandamus and the memorandum in support thereof; and the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, it is
ORDERED that the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis be granted. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for a writ of mandamus be denied. The court construed the notice of appeal as a mandamus petition because a district court order transferring a case to another district is not an appealable order, and the proper means for contesting such an order is a petition for writ of mandamus filed in this court. See Hill v. Henderson, 195 F.3d 671, 676 (D.C. Cir. 1999); D.C. Circuit Handbook of Practice and Internal Procedure 18 (2007). The district court did not abuse its discretion in transferring petitioner's case to the District of Minnesota. See In re Tripati, 836 F.2d 1406, 1407 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (per curiam). Even if petitioner has asserted damages claims that do not sound in habeas, venue is appropriate in that judicial district, where petitioner is confined and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391. The transferee court can decide whether to construe petitioner's claims as a habeas petition.
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.