Opinion
1:18-cv-01250-JDP (HC)
09-17-2018
STEVEN WAYNE BONILLA, Petitioner, v. THOMAS D. ZEFF, Respondent.
ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE
Petitioner Steven Wayne Bonilla is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and seeking a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
A state prisoner may file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in one of at most two districts: "the district court for the district wherein such person is in custody or in the district court for the district within which the State court was held which convicted and sentenced him." 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). In situations where these two districts differ, the district courts of both districts have concurrent jurisdiction, and the court in which the petition is filed may exercise its discretion to transfer the petition to the other district "in furtherance of justice." Id.; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). Traditionally, federal courts in California have chosen to hear habeas petitions challenging a conviction or sentence in the district of conviction, see Dannenberg v. Ingle, 831 F. Supp. 767, 767 (N.D. Cal. 1993), because records, witnesses, and other evidence necessary for resolving the petition are in that district, see Woods v. California, No. 14-cv-289, 2014 WL 1128430, at *1, n.1 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2014).
Here, petitioner is in custody in Marin County and challenges a conviction from Alameda County, both of which are in the Northern District of California. Following the custom of the federal courts in California, this court will transfer the petition to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. A "substantial part of the events . . . giving rise to the claim occurred" in the Northern District, so venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
For these reasons, this matter is transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 17, 2018
/s/_________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE