(HC) Zaragoza v. On Habeas Corpus ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GILBERTO FUENTES ZARAGOZA, 1:21-cv-01775-SKO (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE 13 v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 14 ON HABEAS CORPUS, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a habeas corpus action pursuant to 18 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 19 The federal venue statute requires that a civil action, other than one based on diversity 20 jurisdiction, be brought only in “(1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants 21 are residents of the State in which the district is located, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial 22 part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of the property 23 that is the subject of the action is situated, or (3) if there is no district in which an action may 24 otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any judicial district in which any defendant is 25 subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 26 In this case, the petitioner is challenging a conviction from Orange County, which is in the 27 Central District of California. Therefore, the petition should have been filed in the United States 28 District Court for the Central District of California. In the interest of justice, a federal court may 1 transfer a case filed in the wrong district to the correct district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); Starnes 2 v. McGuire, 512 F.2d 918, 932 (D.C. Cir. 1974). 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the United States 4 District Court for the Central District of California. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 7 Dated: December 17, 2021 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28