(HC) Constancio v. Broomfield

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 OSCAR M CONSTANCIO, Case No. 22-cv-03393-RMI 8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF TRANSFER 9 v. 10 SACRAMENTO SUPERIOR COURT, ll Defendant. qg 12

This is a habeas case filed pro se by a prisoner. Petitioner challenges a conviction obtained

v 14 || in the Sacramento County Superior Court. Sacramento County is in the venue of the United States © 15 || District Court for the Eastern District of California. Petitioner is also incarcerated in the Eastern 16 |} District.

= 17 Venue for a habeas action is proper in either the district of confinement or the district of

18 || conviction. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). This district is neither. Petitions challenging a conviction are 19 || preferably heard in the district of conviction. See Habeas L.R. 2254-3(a); see also Laue v. Nelson, 20 || 279 F. Supp. 265, 266 (N.D. Cal. 1968). Because Petitioner was convicted in the Eastern District, 21 and because he is also being held in that district, this case is TRANSFERRED to the United 22 States District Court for the Eastern District of Califomia. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); Habeas L.R. 23 || 2254-3(b). 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 || Dated: July 18, 2022 26 27 R@BERT M. ILLMAN 28 United States Magistrate Judge