(HC)Shaw v. Clandenin ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 TIMOTHY SHAW, Case No. 1:22-cv-01291-SAB-HC 11 Petitioner, ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 v. 13 STEPHANIE CLANDENIN, 14 Respondent. 15 16 Petitioner is civilly committed to Coalinga State Hospital and proceeding pro se with a 17 petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 18 The habeas statute provides in pertinent part: 19 Where an application for a writ of habeas corpus is made by a person in custody under the judgment and sentence of a State court of a State which contains two or 20 more Federal judicial districts, the application may be filed in the district court for the district wherein such person is in custody or in the district court for the district 21 within which the State court was held which convicted and sentenced him and each of such district courts shall have concurrent jurisdiction to entertain the 22 application. The district court for the district wherein such an application is filed in the exercise of its discretion and in furtherance of justice may transfer the 23 application to the other district court for hearing and determination. 24 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). See also 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (court may transfer any civil action “to any 25 other district or division where it might have been brought” for convenience of parties or “in the 26 interest of justice”). 27 Petitions challenging the execution of a sentence are preferably heard in the district where the inmate is confined. See Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989). 1 | Petitions challenging convictions or sentences are preferably heard in the district of conviction. 2 | See Laue v. Nelson, 279 F. Supp. 265, 266 (N.D. Cal. 1968). Here, Petitioner challenges his civil 3 | commitment trial that was held in the Lake County Superior Court. (ECF No. 1 at 1.)! Therefore, 4 | the petition is preferably heard in the district where the civil commitment took place. See Yahn 5 | v. King, No. C-13-0855 EMC (PR), 2016 WL 69899, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2016) (noting that 6 | the Northern District of California was the “proper venue because the petition concerns the civil 7 | commitment of a person that took place in Lake County, California, which is within this judicial 8 | district’). 9 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is transferred to the United 10 | States District Court for the Northern District of California. 11 0 IT IS SO ORDERED. FA. ee 13 | Dated: _ October 12, 2022 14 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 | | page numbers refer to the ECF page numbers stamped at the top of the page.