(HC) Robben v. Allison ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TODD ROBBEN, 1:21-cv-00657-HBK (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE 13 v. SACRAMENTO DIVISION OF THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 14 KATHLEEN ALLISON, (Doc. No. 1) 15 Respondent. 16 17 18 Petitioner Todd Robben is a state parolee and is proceeding pro se on his petition for writ 19 of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on April 20, 2021. (Doc. No. 1). Petitioner 20 paid the $5.00 filing fee. (Reciept No. CAE1000481). Although petition is currently under the 21 supervision of Kern County, which is located within the jurisdiction and venue of this court’s 22 Fresno Division, the petition challenges petitioner’s state sentence and conviction that was 23 entered by the El Dorado County Superior Court, which is located within the jurisdiction and 24 venue of the Sacramento Division of this court. (Id. at 1). Petitioner concedes that his petition 25 should have been filed in the Sacramento Division but was filed in the Fresno Division in order 26 that it be timely filed. (Id. at 7-8). 27 Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d), jurisdiction is proper in the judicial district where the 28 petitioner was convicted or where the petitioner is incarcerated (here, serving parole). Therefore, 1 | both the Sacramento Division and the Fresno Division of the Eastern District of California have 2 | concurrent jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d); Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 428 (2004). 3 | However, “[flor the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court 4 | may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought.” 5 | U.S.C. § 1404(a). Federal courts in California generally hear petitions for writ of habeas 6 | corpus in the district of conviction. Favor v. California, No. 116-CV-01912-DAD-EPG-HC, 7 | 2017 WL 2671006, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 21, 2017) (citing Laue v. Nelson, 279 F. Supp. 265, 266 8 | (N.D. Cal. 1968). The court finds in its discretion “and in furtherance of justice” the petition 9 | should be transferred to the Sacramento Division of the Eastern District of California. 28 U.S.C. 10 | §§ 1404(a), 2241(d). 11 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 12 1. The Clerk shall transfer this case to the United States District Court for the Eastern 13 || District of California, Sacramento Division; and 14 2. All future filings shall reference the new case number assigned and shall be filed at: 15 United States District Court 16 Eastern District of California Sacramento Division 17 501 I Street, Room 4-200 13 Sacramento, CA 95814 19 | □□ □□ SO ORDERED. 20 21 | Dated: __ April 22, 2021 Mote fares Back HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 22 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28