(HC) Vochatzer v. People of the State of California ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 CHRISTOPHER VOCHATZER, Case No. 20-cv-00877-DMR (PR) 8 Petitioner, ORDER OF TRANSFER v. 9 10 MATTHEW ATCHLEY, Acting Warden,1 Respondent. 11 12 Petitioner, a state prisoner who is incarcerated at Salinas Valley State Prison in Monterey 13 County, has filed this pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging a judgment of 14 conviction from the Yolo County Superior Court. Dkt. 1. Petitioner has consented to magistrate 15 judge jurisdiction in this action, which has been assigned to the undersigned Magistrate Judge. 16 Dkts. 2, 3. Petitioner has paid the full filing fee. See Dkt. 1. 17 A petition for a writ of habeas corpus made by a person in custody under the judgment and 18 sentence of a state court of a State which contains two or more federal judicial districts may be 19 filed in either the district of confinement or the district of conviction. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). 20 The district court where the petition is filed, however, may transfer the petition to the other district 21 in the furtherance of justice. See id. Federal courts in California traditionally have chosen to hear 22 petitions challenging a conviction or sentence in the district of conviction. See Dannenberg v. 23 Ingle, 831 F. Supp. 767, 767 (N.D. Cal. 1993); Laue v. Nelson, 279 F. Supp. 265, 266 (N.D. Cal. 24 1968). If the petition is directed to the manner in which a sentence is being executed, e.g., if it 25 involves parole or time credits claims, the district of confinement is the preferable forum. See 26 27 1 Matthew Atchley, the current acting warden of the prison where Petitioner is WQO00 2.4V UV VEltY YAN PYVUULLIOCII PUM Vervorcy raye aeovicac 1 Habeas L.R. 2254-3(a); Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989). 2 Here, Petitioner challenges a conviction and sentence incurred in the Yolo County Superior 3 Court, which is within the venue of the Eastern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 84. 4 || Because Petitioner is challenging his conviction and sentence, venue for the instant habeas action 5 || is proper in the district of conviction. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). 6 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) and Habeas L.R. 2254-3(b), and in the interest of justice, 7 this action is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of 8 California.2 The Clerk of the Court shall transfer the case forthwith. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 Dated: June 8, 2020 ll ) 12 DONNA M. RYU 13 United States Magistrate Judge © 15 16 17 Zz 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ? Venue transfer is a non-dispositive matter and, thus, it falls within the scope of the jurisdiction of the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).