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

Case 3:08-cv-00054-BTM-WMC

Document 2

Filed 01/28/2008

Page 1 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a habeas corpus action filed pursuant vs. M. MUNTZ, Warden (A), et al., Respondents. WALTER WALKER, Petitioner, Civil No. 08-0054 BTM (WMc) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ORDER TRANSFERRING ACTION TO UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, EASTERN DIVISION

15 to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West Supp. 2007). Petitioner has paid the $5.00 filing fee. Upon 16 reviewing the petition, the Court finds that this case should be transferred in the interest of 17 justice. 18 A petition for writ of habeas corpus may be filed in the United States District Court of

19 either the judicial district in which the petitioner is presently confined or the judicial district in 20 which he was convicted and sentenced. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d); Braden v. 30th Judicial 21 Circuit Court, 410 U.S. 484, 497 (1973). Petitioner is presently confined at Chuckawalla Valley 22 State Prison, located in Riverside County, which is within the jurisdictional boundaries of the 23 United States District Court for the Central District of California, Eastern Division. See 24 28 U.S.C. § 84(c)(1). Petitioner's state court conviction occurred in Riverside County Superior 25 Court, which is also located within the jurisdictional boundaries of the United States District 26 Court for the Central District of California, Eastern Division See 28 U.S.C. § 84(c)(1). Thus, 27 jurisdiction exists in Central District, but not in the Southern District. 28 -108cv0054

Case 3:08-cv-00054-BTM-WMC

Document 2

Filed 01/28/2008

Page 2 of 2

1

Although this Court does not have jurisdiction over the action, "[u]nder a provision of the

2 Federal Courts Improvement Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1631, if a court finds that there is a want of 3 jurisdiction the court shall transfer the action to any other such court in which the action could 4 have been brought `if it is in the interest of justice.'" Miller v. Hambrick, 905 F.2d 259, 262 (9th 5 Cir. 1990) (citing In re McCauley, 814 F.2d 1350, 1351-52 (9th Cir. 1987)). The Ninth Circuit 6 has held that transferring a habeas corpus proceeding to a district with proper jurisdiction will 7 be in the interest of justice because normally dismissal of an action that could be brought 8 elsewhere is "time-consuming and justice-defeating." Miller, 905 F.2d at 262 (quoting 9 Goldlawr, Inc. v. Heiman, 369 U.S. 463, 467 (1962). Therefore, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631, 10 this Court may transfer this proceeding to a district with proper jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 11 § 2241(d). 12 When a habeas petitioner is challenging a state court conviction, the district court of the

13 district in which the state court conviction took place is a more convenient forum because of the 14 accessibility of evidence, records and witnesses. Thus, it is generally the practice of the district 15 courts in California to transfer habeas actions questioning state court convictions to the district 16 in which the state court conviction took place. Any and all records, witnesses and evidence 17 necessary for the resolution of Petitioner's contentions are more readily available in Riverside 18 County. See Braden, 410 U.S. at 497, 499 n.15 (stating that a court can, of course, transfer 19 habeas cases to the district of conviction which is ordinarily a more convenient forum). 20 Therefore, in the furtherance of justice, 21 IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court transfer this matter to the United States

22 District Court for the Central District of California, Eastern Division. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). 23 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court serve a copy of this Order

24 upon Petitioner and upon the California Attorney General. 25 DATED: January 28, 2008 26 27 28 -208cv0054

Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz United States District Judge