(HC) Simmons v. Macomber

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: August 29, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-01070
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MELVIN SIMMONS, JR., No. 1:25-cv-01070-SKO (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 13 v. THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 14 JEFFREY MACOMBER, Secretary, et al., 15 Respondents. 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. Because Petitioner challenges a Los Angeles County Superior 19 Court conviction, venue is proper for this action in the Central District of California. Thus, the 20 Court will order the petition transferred. 21 When a state prisoner files a habeas petition in a state that contains two or more federal 22 judicial districts, the petition may be filed in either the judicial district in which the petitioner is 23 presently confined or the judicial district in which he was convicted and sentenced. See 28 U.S.C. 24 § 2241(d); Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 442 (2004) (quoting Carbo v. United States, 364 25 U.S. 611, 618, 81 S. Ct. 338, 5 L. Ed. 2d 329 (1961)). Petitions challenging the execution of a 26 sentence are preferably heard in the district where the inmate is confined. See Dunne v. Henman, 27 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989). Petitions challenging convictions or sentences are preferably 28 heard in the district of conviction. See Laue v. Nelson, 279 F. Supp. 265, 266 (N.D. Cal. 1968). 1 Section 2241 further states that, rather than dismissing an improperly filed action, a district court, 2 “in the exercise of its discretion and in furtherance of justice[,] may transfer” the habeas petition 3 to another federal district for hearing and determination. Id.; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (court 4 may transfer any civil action “to any other district or division where it might have been brought” 5 for convenience of parties or “in the interest of justice”). 6 Here, although the claims are not clear, Petitioner challenges the underlying judgment of 7 conviction in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. He alleges the judgment is void, worthless, 8 and unconstitutional, and he seeks immediate release. Therefore, venue is proper in the Central 9 District of California. 10 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is TRANSFERRED to the 11 United States District Court for the Central District of California. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13

14 Dated: August 28, 2025 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28