(HC) Cleveland v. Robertson

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 EUREKA DIVISION 4 5 PIERRE CLEVELAND, Case No. 20-cv-00300-RMI 6 Plaintiff, 7 □□ ORDER OF TRANSFER Re: Dkt. Nos. 1, 6 8 SUPERIOR COURT, 9 Defendant. 10 11 This is a habeas case filed pro se by a state prisoner. Petitioner challenges a conviction 12 || obtained in the Sacramento County Superior Court. Sacramento County is in the venue of the 5 13 || United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. Petitioner is incarcerated in this 14 || district. 15 Venue for a habeas action is proper in either the district of confinement or the district of a 16 || conviction. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). Petitions challenging a conviction are preferably heard in the 3 17 district of conviction. See Habeas L.R. 2254-3(a); see also Laue v. Nelson, 279 F. Supp. 265, 266 18 (N.D. Cal. 1968). Because Petitioner was convicted in the Eastern District, this case is 19 || TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. See 28 20 || U.S.C. § 1406(a); Habeas L.R. 2254-3(b). All pending motions are VACATED and will be 21 addressed in the Eastern District. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 Dated: March 30, 2020 24 Ml Z 25 RQBERT M. ILLMAN 26 United States Magistrate Judge 27 28