(HC) Harge v. Roberson ( 2020 )

1.400 VV VLlY SY OWING PYVUULITICEIL ViVi Payee +ViIs+ 1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 DEMARIA C. HARGE, Case No. 20-cv-04663-JD 8 Petitioner, y ORDER OF TRANSFER ? Re: Dkt. Nos. 3, 5 10 JIM ROBERSON, ll Respondent. 12 13 This is a habeas case filed pro se by a state prisoner. Petitioner challenges a conviction v 14 || obtained in Stanislaus County Superior Court. Stanislaus County is in the venue of the United O 15 States District Court for the Eastern District of California. Petitioner is incarcerated in this 16 || district. 17 Venue for a habeas action is proper in either the district of confinement or the district of 18 || conviction, 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). Because petitions challenging a conviction are preferably heard 19 in the district of conviction, Habeas L.R. 2254-3(a); Laue v. Nelson, 279 F. Supp. 265, 266 (N.D. 20 Cal. 1968), and petitioner was convicted in the Eastern District of California, this case is 21 TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. See 28 22 || U.S.C. § 1406(a); Habeas L.R. 2254-3(b). All pending motions are VACATED. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 || Dated: September 1, 2020 25 26 JAMES TO 27 United Stgfes District Judge 28