Brown v. United States

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: September 26, 2011
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2011-1734
• Status: Published

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSEPH ANTHONY BROWN, 1:11-cv-01586-GSA-(HC) 12 ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 13 Petitioner, THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 14 vs. 15 U.S.A., 16 Respondent. 17 / 18 19 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 20 U.S.C. § 2254. 21 The federal venue statute requires that a civil action, other than one based on diversity 22 jurisdiction, be brought only in “(1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside 23 in the same state, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise 24 to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of the property that is the subject of the action is situated, or 25 (3) a judicial district in which any defendant may be found, if there is no district in which the action may 26 otherwise be brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 27 In this case, the petitioner is challenging a conviction from Washington D.C. Superior Court, 28 which is in the District of Columbia. Therefore, the petition should have been filed in the United States

-1- 1 District Court for the District of Columbia. In the interest of justice, a federal court may transfer a case 2 filed in the wrong district to the correct district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); Starnes v. McGuire, 512 F.2d 3 918, 932 (D.C. Cir. 1974). 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the United States 5 District Court for the District of Columbia. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: September 26, 2011 /s/ Gary S. Austin 23ehd0 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-2-