(HC) Smith v. Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 BRIAN ANDREW SMITH, Case No. 23-cv-01302-RMI 8 Petitioner, ORDER OF TRANSFER 9 v. 10 UNKNOWN, ll Respondent. 12

This is a habeas case filed pro se by a prisoner. Petitioner challenges a conviction obtained 14 || in the Fresno County Superior Court. Fresno County is in the venue of the United States District 3 15 || Court for the Eastern District of California. Petitioner is incarcerated in this district. 16 Venue for a habeas action is proper in either the district of confinement or the district of 3 17 || conviction. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). Petitions challenging a conviction are preferably heard in the 18 || district of conviction. See Habeas L.R. 2254-3(a); see also Laue v. Nelson, 279 F. Supp. 265, 266 19 (N.D. Cal. 1968). Because Petitioner was convicted in the Eastern District, this case is 20 || TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. See 28 21 || U.S.C. § 1406(a); Habeas L.R. 2254-3(b). 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 Dated: March 28, 2023 24 Mt Z 25 6 ROBERT M. ILLMAN United States Magistrate Judge 27 28