(HC) Johnson v. Allen ( 2023 )

1 Law Offices of Beles & Beles Robert J. Beles Bar no. 41993 2 Paul McCarthy Bar no. 139497 One Kaiser Plaza, Suite 2300 3 Oakland, California 94612-3642 Tel No. (510) 836-0100 4 Fax. No. (510) 832-3690 5 Attorneys for Petitioner CHRISTOPHER VANNING JOHNSON 6 7 8 United States District Court Northern District of California 9 Eureka Courthouse 10 CHRISTOPHER VANNING JOHNSON No. 1:23-cv-01374-RMI 11 Petitioner, PROPOSED ORDER TRANSFERRING 12 vs. CASE 13 TRENT ALLEN, Warden, Salinas Valley State (Habeas L.R. 2254-3(b)) Prison, California, 14 Respondent. 15 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 16 Real Party in Interest. 17 18 PROPOSED ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE 19 Petitioner, a state prisoner who is incarcerated at Salinas Valley State Prison, filed this 20 petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging the validity of his 21 conviction obtained in the Solano County Superior Court. [Docket No. 1.] 22 A petition for a writ of habeas corpus made by a person in custody under the judgment 23 and sentence of a state court of a State which contains two or more federal judicial districts may 24 be filed in either the district of confinement or the district of conviction. See 28 U.S.C. § 25 2241(d). The district court where the petition is filed, however, may transfer the petition to the 26 other district in the furtherance of justice. See id. Federal courts in California traditionally have 27 chosen to hear petitions challenging a conviction or sentence in the district of conviction. See 1 Dannenberg v. Ingle, 831 F. Supp. 767, 767 (N.D. Cal. 1993); Laue v. Nelson, 279 F. Sup} 2 265, 266 (N.D. Cal. 1968). If the petition is directed to the manner in which a sentence is bein 3 executed, e.g., if it involves parole or time credits claims, the district of confinement is th 4 preferable forum. See Habeas L.R. 2254-3(a); Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Ci 5 1989). 6 Here, Petitioner challenges a conviction and sentence incurred in the Solano Count 7 Superior Court, which is within the venue of the Eastern District of California. Therefore, th 8 United States District Court for the Eastern District of California has jurisdiction over th: 9 matter. 10 The court takes judicial notice that a petition of a petitioner who was □□□□□□□□□ 11 Johnson’s co-defendant in the Solano County Superior Court, Gutierrez v. Smith,4:23-e 12 01372-DMR, was transferred to the Eastern District of California on April 13, 202: 13 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) and Habeas L.R. 2254-3(b), in the interest of justice, an 14 also to avoid duplication of the courts’ labor and expense and possible conflicting results in th 15 two cases, this action is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Easter 16 District of California. |! The Clerk shall transfer the case forthwith. 17 Dated: Eureka, California, May 15, 2023 18 20 21 Robert M. Il]man 99 United States District Magistrate Judge 23 24 25 26 27 □□ 28 1 Venue transfer is a non-dispositive matter and, thus, it falls within the scope of the jurisdiction of th undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).