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

Case 3:08-cv-00042-LAB-CAB

Document 4

Filed 01/14/2008

Page 1 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a habeas corpus action filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West Supp. 2007). He has also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis and a motion for stay. Upon reviewing the petition, the Court finds that this case should be transferred in the interest of justice. Thus, this Court does not rule on Petitioner's in forma pauperis status or his motion for stay. A petition for writ of habeas corpus may be filed in the United States District Court of either the judicial district in which the petitioner is presently confined or the judicial district in which he was convicted and sentenced. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d); Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court, 410 U.S. 484, 497 (1973). Petitioner is presently confined at Centinela State Prison, located in Imperial County, which is within the jurisdictional boundaries of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(d). Petitioner's state court conviction occurred in Riverside County Superior Court, which is located within the vs. VICTOR M. ALAMGER, Warden, Respondent. CHARLES HAYDEN MCMANAMY, Petitioner, Civil No. 08-0042 LAB (CAB) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

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

K : \ C O M M O N \ E V E R Y O N E \ _ E F I L E - PR O S E \ L A B \ 0 8 c v 0 0 4 2 t ra n s f er .w p d , 1 1 4 8

-1-

08cv0042

Case 3:08-cv-00042-LAB-CAB

Document 4

Filed 01/14/2008

Page 2 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

jurisdictional boundaries of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Eastern Division See 28 U.S.C. § 84(c)(1). Thus, jurisdiction exists in both the Southern and Central Districts. When a habeas petitioner is challenging a state court conviction, the district court of the district in which the state court conviction took place is a more convenient forum because of the accessibility of evidence, records and witnesses. Thus, it is generally the practice of the district courts in California to transfer habeas actions questioning state court convictions to the district in which the state court conviction took place. Any and all records, witnesses and evidence necessary for the resolution of Petitioner's contentions are more readily available in Riverside County. See Braden, 410 U.S. at 497, 499 n.15 (stating that a court can, of course, transfer habeas cases to the district of conviction which is ordinarily a more convenient forum). Therefore, in the furtherance of justice, IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court transfer this matter to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Eastern Division. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court serve a copy of this Order upon Petitioner and upon the California Attorney General. DATED: January 10, 2008

H ONORABLE L ARRY A LAN B URNS United States District Judge

K : \ C O M M O N \ E V E R Y O N E \ _ E F I L E - PR O S E \ L A B \ 0 8 c v 0 0 4 2 t ra n s f er .w p d , 1 1 4 8

-2-

08cv0042