(HC) Griffin v. People of State of California ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 DEXTER L. GRIFFIN, 11 Case No. 20-07539 EJD (PR) Petitioner, 12 ORDER OF TRANSER v. 13 14 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CA, 15 Respondent. 16 17 18 Petitioner, a state prisoner, has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus 19 under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Dkt. No. 5. Petitioner previously filed a habeas action which was 20 transferred to the Eastern District of California as the proper forum. See Griffin v. People 21 of the State of CA, Case No. 19-7698 EJD (PR) (Dkt. No. 14).1 In this matter, Petitioner is 22 currently confined at Coalinga State Hospital, and appears to be raising new claims 23 challenging his underlying conviction. Dkt. No. 5 at 1, 5-6. 24 Venue for a habeas action is proper in either the district of confinement or the 25 district of conviction, 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). Federal courts in California traditionally have 26 27 1 At the time he filed the earlier habeas action, Petitioner was confined at Coalinga State 1 || chosen to hear petitions challenging a conviction or sentence in the district of conviction or 2 || sentencing. See Habeas L.R. 2254-3(b)(1); Dannenberg v. Ingle, 831 F. Supp. 767, 768 3 || (N.D. Cal. 1993); Laue v. Nelson, 279 F. Supp. 265, 266 (N.D. Cal. 1968). But if the 4 || petition challenges the manner in which a sentence is being executed, e.g., if it involves 5 || parole or time credits claims, the district of confinement is the preferable forum. See 6 || Habeas L.R. 2254-3(b)(2); Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989). 7 As his previous petition indicated,” Petitioner was convicted in Sacramento County 8 || which lies within the Eastern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(b). Petitioner is g || currently confined at Coalinga State Hospital in Fresno County which is also within the 10 || Eastern District. Id. Therefore, the venue for this action is in that district and not in this 11 || one. See id.; Habeas L.R. 2254-3(a)(1). Accordingly, this case is TRANSFERRED to the 2 United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 13 1406(a); Habeas L.R. 2254-3(b)(1). S 14 The Clerk shall terminate all pending motions and transfer the entire file to the 3 15 || Eastern District of California. 4 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 17 || Dated: 3/5/2021 5 EDWARD J. DAVILA United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PRO-SE\EID HHC.20007539Griffin.transfex(ED) 26