Opinion
1:23-cv-01374-RMI
05-15-2023
CHRISTOPHER VANNING JOHNSON Petitioner, v. TRENT ALLEN, Warden, Salinas Valley State Prison, California, Respondent. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Real Party in Interest.
Law Offices of Beles & Beles Robert J. Beles Paul McCarthy Attorneys for Petitioner
Law Offices of Beles & Beles
Robert J. Beles
Paul McCarthy
Attorneys for Petitioner
PROPOSED ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE
ROBERT M. ILLMAN, DISTRICT MAGISTRATE JUDGE
PROPOSED ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE
Petitioner, a state prisoner who is incarcerated at Salinas Valley State Prison, filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging the validity of his conviction obtained in the Solano County Superior Court. [Docket No. 1.]
A petition for a writ of habeas corpus made by a person in custody under the judgment and sentence of a state court of a State which contains two or more federal judicial districts may be filed in either the district of confinement or the district of conviction. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). The district court where the petition is filed, however, may transfer the petition to the other district in the furtherance of justice. See Id. Federal courts in California traditionally have chosen to hear petitions challenging a conviction or sentence in the district of conviction. See Dannenberg v. Ingle, 831 F.Supp. 767, 767 (N.D. Cal. 1993); Laue v. Nelson, 279 F.Supp. 265, 266 (N.D. Cal. 1968). If the petition is directed to the manner in which a sentence is being executed, e.g., if it involves parole or time credits claims, the district of confinement is the preferable forum. See Habeas L.R. 2254-3(a); Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989).
Here, Petitioner challenges a conviction and sentence incurred in the Solano County Superior Court, which is within the venue of the Eastern District of California. Therefore, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California has jurisdiction over this matter.
The court takes judicial notice that a petition of a petitioner who was apparently Johnson's co-defendant in the Solano County Superior Court, Gutierrez v. Smith,4:23-cv-01372-DMR, was transferred to the Eastern District of California on April 13, 2023.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) and Habeas L.R. 2254-3(b), in the interest of justice, and also to avoid duplication of the courts' labor and expense and possible conflicting results in the two cases, this action is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. The Clerk shall transfer the case forthwith.
Venue transfer is a non-dispositive matter and, thus, it falls within the scope of the jurisdiction of the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).