(HC) Washington v. Lynch ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL J. WASHINGTON, Case No. 1:19-cv-01131-JDP (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE 13 v. 14 LYNCH, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner Michael J. Washington, a state prisoner without counsel, seeks a writ of habeas 18 corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 1. Because petitioner challenges a state-court judgment 19 entered by the Superior Court of California, County of Sonoma, the court will transfer the case to 20 the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. 21 A state prisoner may file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in one of two districts: “the 22 district court for the district wherein such person is in custody or in the district court for the 23 district within which the State court was held which convicted and sentenced him.” 28 U.S.C. 24 § 2241(d). In situations where these two districts differ, the district courts of both districts have 25 concurrent jurisdiction, and the court in which the petition is filed may exercise its discretion to 26 transfer the petition to the other district “in furtherance of justice.” Id.; see also 28 U.S.C. 27 ' 1406(a). Traditionally, federal courts in California have chosen to hear habeas petitions 28 challenging a conviction or sentence in the district of conviction, see Dannenberg v. Ingle, 831 F. 1 Supp. 767, 767 (N.D. Cal. 1993), because records, witnesses, and other evidence necessary for 2 | resolving the petition are in that district, see Woods v. California, No. 14-cv-289, 2014 WL 3 | 1128430, at *1, n.1 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2014). 4 Here, petitioner challenges a state-court judgment from Sonoma. ECF No. | at 2; see also 5 | People v. Washington, No. A122299, 2009 WL 2875363, at *1 (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 9, 2009). 6 | Following the custom of the federal courts in California, this court will transfer the petition to the 7 | Northern District. A “substantial part of the events . . . giving rise to the claim occurred” in the 8 | Northern District, so venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 9 Order 10 This matter is transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 ( Waban Dated: _ September 19, 2019 14 UNIT#D STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 No. 202 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28