(HC) Gosztyla v. Paralles

District Court, E.D. California·Decided October 1, 2021·No. 2:21-cv-01815·Unknown

Opinion

CHANTELL GOSZTYLA, 1:21-cv-01462-HBK (HC)

Petitioner, ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE v. SACRAMENTO DIVISION OF THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Respondent. Petitioner is proceeding pro se on her petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 1). Petitioner is a prisoner incarcerated in Madera County, which is located within the jurisdiction and venue of this court’s Fresno Division. Petitioner challenges her state sentence and conviction entered by the Superior Court of Sacramento County, which is located within the jurisdiction and venue of the Sacramento Division of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d), jurisdiction is proper in the judicial district where the petitioner was convicted or where the petitioner is incarcerated. Therefore, both the Fresno Division and the Sacramento Division of the Eastern District of California have concurrent jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d); Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 428 (2004). However, “[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Federal courts in California generally hear petitions for writ of habeas corpus in the district of conviction. Favor v. California, No. 116-CV-01912-DAD-EPG-HC, 2017 WL 2671006, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 21, 2017) (citing Laue v. Nelson, 279 F. Supp. 265, 266 (N.D. Cal. 1968). Thus, the Court finds in its discretion “and in furtherance of justice” the petition should be transferred to the Sacramento Division of the Eastern District of California. 28 U.S.C. □□□□□□□□□□ 2241(d). Further, the Court declines to rule on Petitioner’s pending motion for extension of time. (Doc. No. 2). Accordingly, 1. The Clerk shall transfer this action to the Sacramento Division of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California; and 2. All future filings shall reference the new case number assigned and shall be filed at: United States District Court Eastern District of California 501 “T° Street, Suite 4-200 Sacramento, CA 95814 Dated: _ October 1, 2021 Mile. Wh fareh Zaskth HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

(HC) Gosztyla v. Paralles, (E.D. Cal. 2021).

(HC) Gosztyla v. Paralles ((HC) Gosztyla v. Paralles) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Rumsfeld v. Padilla
542 U.S. 426 (Supreme Court, 2004)
Laue v. Nelson
279 F. Supp. 265 (N.D. California, 1968)