(HC) Baxter v. Pfeiffer ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ANTHONY HARRISON BAXTER, Case No. 21-cv-03775-HSG 8 Petitioner, ORDER VACATING ORDER OF DISMISSAL AND JUDGMENT; 9 v. REOPENING CASE; TRANSFERRING CASE TO EASTERN DISTRICT OF 10 WARDEN CHRISTIAN PFEIFFER, CALIFORNIA 11 Respondent. 12 13 Petitioner, a state prisoner currently incarcerated at Kern Valley State Prison in Delano, 14 California, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.1 For the 15 reasons set forth below, the Court VACATES the July 1, 2021 Order of Dismissal and Related 16 Judgment, REOPENS this action, and TRANSFERS this action to the Eastern District of 17 California. 18 I. Motion to Reopen Action 19 On July 1, 2021, the Court dismissed this action without prejudice for failure to either pay 20 the filing fee or submit an in forma pauperis application, and entered judgment in favor of 21 Respondent. Dkt. Nos. 7, 8. On July 14, 2021, Petitioner filed a letter with the Court stating that 22 his address of record was incorrect, and that he never received notice of the Clerk’s May 19, 2021 23 notice of failure to complete an in forma pauperis application or pay the filing fee. Dkt. No. 9. 24 25 1 The Clerk of the Court is directed to substitute Warden Christian Pfeiffer in place of the previously named respondent because Warden Pfeiffer is Petitioner’s current custodian. See 26 Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir.), as amended (May 8, 1996) (rules governing relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 require person in custody pursuant to judgment of state court to 27 name state officer having custody of him as respondent); Stanley v. Cal. Sup. Ct., 21 F.3d 359, 360 1 Petitioner attached a complete in forma pauperis application to this letter. See Dkt. No. 9. The 2 || Court construes this letter as both a request to reopen the case and an application to proceed in 3 || forma pauperis. Good cause being shown, the Court GRANTS the request to reopen the case. 4 || The Clerk is directed to VACATE the July 1, 2021 Order of Dismissal and related judgment, and 5 REOPEN this action. 6 || II. Transferring Action to Eastern District of California. 7 Petitioner is currently incarcerated at Kern Valley State Prison in Delano, California, and is 8 || challenging his conviction from Shasta County Superior Court. Dkt. No. | at 2. Delano is located 9 || in Kern County, which lies within the venue of the Eastern District of California. Shasta County 10 also lies within the venue of the Eastern District of California. 28 U.S.C. § 84(b)-(d). 11 Venue for a habeas action is proper in either the district of confinement or the district of 12 conviction. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). Federal courts in California traditionally have chosen to hear 5 13 petitions challenging a conviction or sentence in the district of conviction. See Dannenberg v. 14 Ingle, 831 F. Supp. 767, 767 (N.D. Cal. 1993); Laue v. Nelson, 279 F.Supp. 265, 266 (N.D. Cal. 3 15 1968). Here, Petitioner’s conviction was obtained in, and he is incarcerated in, Kern County. 16 Because Kern County lies within the venue of the Eastern District of California, venue therefore 3 17 properly lies in that district and not in this one. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Accordingly, this case is 18 TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. See 28 19 || U.S.C. § 1406(a). 20 In light of this transfer, the pending motion to proceed in forma pauperis is deferred to the 21 Eastern District. 22 The Clerk shall transfer the file herewith. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 || Dated: 7/20/2021 25 Appr 3 bbl). 6 HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. United States District Judge 27 28