(HC) Nunez v. United States of America ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FERNANDO M. NUNEZ, 1:20-cv-00994-SKO (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE 13 v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a habeas corpus action pursuant to 18 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and has paid the filing fee. 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 the Eastern District of North 27 Carolina. “Generally, motions to contest the legality of a sentence must be filed under § 2255 in 28 the sentencing court, while petitions that challenge the manner, location, or conditions of a 1 sentence's execution must be brought pursuant to § 2241 in the custodial court.” Hernandez v. 2 Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 864 (9th Cir. 2000). Nevertheless, a federal prisoner may file a habeas 3 corpus petition pursuant to § 2241 where his remedy under § 2255 is "inadequate or ineffective to 4 test the legality of his detention." 28 U.S.C. § 2255. In this case, Petitioner contends that his remedy 5 under § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective and he seeks to invoke the savings clause. Therefore, the 6 petition should have been filed in the custodial court. Since Petitioner was incarcerated at the 7 United States Penitentiary in Lompoc, California, at the time he filed his petition, the proper venue 8 is the United States District Court for the Central District of California. In the interest of justice, a 9 federal court may transfer a case filed in the wrong district to the correct district. See 28 U.S.C. § 10 1406(a); Starnes v. McGuire, 512 F.2d 918, 932 (D.C. Cir. 1974). 11 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the United States 12 District Court for the Central District of California. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 Sheila K. Oberto 15 Dated: July 22, 2020 /s/ . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28