Gutierrez Jr. v. Smith ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JESUS GUTIERREZ JR., Case No. 23-cv-01372-DMR 8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF TRANSFER 9 v. 10 OAK SMITH, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 Petitioner, a state prisoner who is incarcerated at San Quentin State Prison, filed this 13 petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging the validity of his 14 conviction obtained in the Solano County Superior Court. [Docket No. 1.] 15 A petition for a writ of habeas corpus made by a person in custody under the judgment and 16 sentence of a state court of a State which contains two or more federal judicial districts may be 17 filed in either the district of confinement or the district of conviction. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). 18 The district court where the petition is filed, however, may transfer the petition to the other district 19 in the furtherance of justice. See id. Federal courts in California traditionally have chosen to hear 20 petitions challenging a conviction or sentence in the district of conviction. See Dannenberg v. 21 Ingle, 831 F. Supp. 767, 767 (N.D. Cal. 1993); Laue v. Nelson, 279 F. Supp. 265, 266 (N.D. Cal. 22 1968). If the petition is directed to the manner in which a sentence is being executed, e.g., if it 23 involves parole or time credits claims, the district of confinement is the preferable forum. See 24 Habeas L.R. 2254-3(a); Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989). 25 Here, Petitioner challenges a conviction and sentence incurred in the Solano County 26 Superior Court, which is within the venue of the Eastern District of California. Therefore, the 27 United States District Court for the Eastern District of California has jurisdiction over this matter. 1 this action is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of 2 California.! The Clerk shall transfer the case forthwith. Petitioner’s administrative motion to 3 relate this case to Johnson v, Allen, Case No. 23-cy-01374-RMI (Docket No. 3) is denied as moot. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. ky SO’ R) 6 Dated: April 13, 2023 by , 2[\1r 3 □ Do yn.) 733 > 8 7. |Z O Toe Donne 9 A Wace □ oS □□□ 10 OX □□ ey os □ 11 DISTRICS a 12 13 14 15 16 € = 17 Zz 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ' Venue transfer is a non-dispositive matter and, thus, it falls within the scope of the 2g || Jurisdiction of the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).