(HC) Weisner v. Allison ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 FRANKIE J. WEISNER, Case No. 22-cv-07419-SVK 9 Plaintiff, ORDER OF TRANSFER v. 10 11 KATHLEEN ALLISON, Defendant. 12 13 Petitioner, a state prisoner at the California Training Facility (“CTF”), has filed a petition 14 for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenges a sentence from the 15 Superior Court of Sacramento County. Venue for a habeas action is proper in either the district of 16 confinement or the district of conviction. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). However, petitions 17 challenging a conviction or sentence are preferably heard in the district of conviction. See Habeas 18 L.R. 2254-3(b)(1); Laue v. Nelson, 279 F. Supp. 265, 266 (N.D. Cal. 1968). Petitioner claims that 19 he is “entitled” to have his “prior strike enhancement removed” because Section 654 of the 20 California Penal Code prohibits multiple punishments for the same offense. (ECF No. 1 at 5.) 21 Because he challenges the validity of his sentence, the preferred venue is the district of his 22 conviction. 23 Sacramento County, where Petitioner was convicted, lies in the venue of the United States 24 District Court for the Eastern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 84. Accordingly, this case is 25 TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. See 28 26 U.S.C. § 1406(a). 27 // 1 The Clerk shall terminate all pending motions and transfer the entire file to the Eastern 2 || District of California. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 || Dated: February 6, 2023 5 Suse ve SUSAN VAN KEULEN 6 United States Magistrate Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 © 15 16 = 17 Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28