Free Case Transferred Out to Another District - District Court of California - California

Case 3:08-cv-01421-J-RBB

Document 3

Filed 08/21/2008

Page 1 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding with a habeas corpus action filed pursuant to vs. WARDEN, MULE CREEK PRISON, et al., Respondents. Petitioner, ORDER TRANSFERRING ACTION TO UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, EASTERN DIVISION CURTIS LEROY FREEMAN, Civil No. 08cv1421 J (RBB) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

18 28 U.S.C. § 2254 attacking a conviction from the Superior Court of Riverside County, 19 California. Petitioner has also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Upon 20 reviewing the petition, the Court finds that this case should be transferred in the interest of 21 justice. Thus, this Court does not rule on Petitioner's in forma pauperis status. 22 A petition for writ of habeas corpus may be filed in the United States District Court of

23 either the judicial district in which the petitioner is presently confined or the judicial district in 24 which he was convicted and sentenced. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d); Braden v. 30th Judicial 25 Circuit Court, 410 U.S. 484, 497 (1973). The application in the present matter attacks a 26 conviction in the Superior Court of Riverside County, California, which is within the 27 jurisdictional boundaries of the United States District Court for the Central District, Eastern 28 / / /

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\J\08cv1421-transfer.wpd, 8218

-1-

08cv1421

Case 3:08-cv-01421-J-RBB

Document 3

Filed 08/21/2008

Page 2 of 3

1 Division. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(c)(1). Moreover, Petitioner is presently confined at Mule Creek 2 State Prison, which is located in Amador County and is within the jurisdictional boundaries of 3 the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(b). 4 Thus, jurisdiction exists in the Central or Eastern District; and not in the Southern District. 5 Although this Court does not have jurisdiction over the action, "[u]nder a provision of the

6 Federal Courts Improvement Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1631, if a court finds that there is a want of 7 jurisdiction the court shall transfer the action to any other such court in which the action could 8 have been brought `if it is in the interest of justice.'" Miller v. Hambrick, 905 F.2d 259, 262 (9th 9 Cir. 1990) (citing In re McCauley, 814 F.2d 1350, 1351-52 (9th Cir. 1987)). The Ninth Circuit 10 has held that transferring a habeas corpus proceeding to a district with proper jurisdiction will 11 be in the interest of justice because normally dismissal of an action that could be brought 12 elsewhere is "time-consuming and justice-defeating." Miller, 905 F.2d at 262 (quoting 13 Goldlawr, Inc. v. Heiman, 369 U.S. 463, 467 (1962). Therefore, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631, 14 this Court may transfer this proceeding to a district with proper jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 15 § 2241(d). 16 When a habeas petitioner is challenging a state conviction, the district court of the district

17 in which a petitioner was convicted and sentenced is a more convenient forum because of the 18 accessibility of evidence, records and witnesses. Thus, it is generally the practice of the district 19 courts in California to transfer habeas actions challenging a state conviction to the district in 20 which the Petitioner was convicted. Any and all records, witnesses and evidence necessary for 21 the resolution of Petitioner's contentions are more readily available in Riverside County, which 22 is thus a more convenient forum. See Braden, 410 U.S. at 497, 499 n.15 (stating that a court can, 23 / / / 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / /

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\J\08cv1421-transfer.wpd, 8218

-2-

08cv1421

Case 3:08-cv-01421-J-RBB

Document 3

Filed 08/21/2008

Page 3 of 3

1 of course, transfer habeas cases to the district of conviction which is ordinarily a more 2 convenient forum); Laue v. Nelson, 279 F. Supp. 265, 266 (N.D. Cal. 1968). 3 Therefore, in the furtherance of justice, IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court

4 transfer this matter to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, 5 Eastern Division. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of 6 this Court serve a copy of this Order upon Petitioner and upon the California Attorney General. 7 8 DATED: August 21, 2008 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 HON. NAPOLEON A. JONES, JR. United States District Judge

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\J\08cv1421-transfer.wpd, 8218

-3-

08cv1421

Case 3:08-cv-01421-J-RBB

Document 3-2

Filed 08/21/2008

Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Southern District Of California Office Of The Clerk 880 Front Street, Room 4290 San Diego, California 92101-8900 Phone: (619) 557-5600 Fax: (619) 702-9900 W. Samuel Hamrick, Jr. Clerk of Court August 21, 2008 Office of the Clerk Central District of California Eastern Division 3470 Twelfth Street Riverside, CA 92501-3801 Re: Freeman v. Warden et al, Case No. 08-cv-01421-J (RBB) Dear Sir or Madam: Pursuant to Order transferring the above-entitled action to your District, we are transmitting herewith our entire file. Thank you. Sincerely yours, W. Samuel Hamrick, Jr. Clerk of Court By: s/ A. Wooden, Deputy Copy to Attorney for Plaintiffs: Copy to Attorney for Defendants: