(HC) Jijon v. Frauenhein
This text of (HC) Jijon v. Frauenhein ((HC) Jijon v. Frauenhein) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10
11 MARIO JIJON, Case No. 1:20-cv-00350-EPG-HC
12 Petitioner, ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 v.
14 SCOTT FRAUENHEIM, 15 Respondent.
16 17 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 18 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 19 When a state prisoner files a habeas petition in a state that contains two or more federal 20 judicial districts, the petition may be filed in either the judicial district in which the petitioner is 21 presently confined or the judicial district in which he was convicted and sentenced. See 28 22 U.S.C. § 2241(d); Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 442 (2004) (quoting Carbo v. United 23 States, 364 U.S. 611, 618, 81 S. Ct. 338, 5 L. Ed. 2d 329 (1961)). Petitions challenging the 24 execution of a sentence are preferably heard in the district where the inmate is confined. See 25 Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989). Petitions challenging convictions or 26 sentences are preferably heard in the district of conviction. See Laue v. Nelson, 279 F. Supp. 27 265, 266 (N.D. Cal. 1968). Section 2241 further states that, rather than dismissing an improperly 1 | transfer” the habeas petition to another federal district for hearing and determination. Id.; see also 2 | 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (court may transfer any civil action “to any other district or division where it 3 | might have been brought” for convenience of parties or “in the interest of justice”). 4 Here, Petitioner is challenging his criminal conviction in the Los Angeles County 5 | Superior Court, and thus, the petition is preferably heard in the district of conviction, which is 6 | the Central District of California. Therefore, this action will be transferred. 7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is TRANSFERRED to the 8 | United States District Court for the Central District of California. 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11] Dated: _March 10, 2020 [sf ey — 2 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
(HC) Jijon v. Frauenhein, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hc-jijon-v-frauenhein-caed-2020.