(HC) Thomas v. Pfeiffer

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: July 28, 2025
• Docket: 1:24-cv-00724
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EDWARD NOEL THOMAS, Case No. 1:24-cv-00724-CDB (HC)

12 Petitioner, ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE WESTERN DIVISION OF THE 13 v. CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 14 CHRISTIAN PFEIFFER, (Doc. 1) 15 Respondent.

16 17 Petitioner Edward Noel Thomas (“Petitioner”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a 18 petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1). Petitioner raises 19 challenges to his September 15, 2023 resentencing on his 1999 conviction entered by the Superior 20 Court of Ventura County. (Id. at 1-2). Ventura County is located within the jurisdiction and 21 venue of the Western Division of the Central District of California. 28 U.S.C. § 84(c)(2). 22 When a habeas petition is filed by a person in custody under a state court judgment, and 23 that state contains two or more federal judicial districts—such as California—the petition may be 24 filed in either the judicial district in which the petitioner is presently confined, or the judicial 25 district in which he was convicted and sentenced. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). When a habeas 26 petition challenges the petitioner’s conviction or sentence, e.g., a habeas petition brought pursuant 27 to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the district where the petitioner was convicted and sentenced is a more convenient forum because trial court records, witnesses, and other evidence related to the crime 1 | and his conviction are usually located in that district. See Braden y. 30" Judicial Cir. Ct. of Ky., 2) 410 U.S. 484, 499 n.I5 (1973). Thus, California courts generally transfer habeas actions 3 | challenging state convictions or sentences to the district where the petitioner was convicted and 4 || sentenced. See, e.g., Tate v. Unknown, No. 24-cv-756 JLS (LR), 2024 WL 2880583, at *1 (S.D. 5 | Cal. May 7, 2024) (citing Braden); Gakuba v. Cal. Attorney Gen., No. 22-cv-07698 NC (PR), 6 | 2022 WL 17813143, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2022); Dannenberg v. Ingle, 831 F. Supp. 767, 767 7 | (NLD. Cal. 1993). 8 Here, because Petitioner is challenging his conviction obtained in Ventura County, the 9 | better forum for his claims is the division of the district court where he was convicted. 10 | Additionally, the undersigned notes that Petitioner filed a subsequent § 2254 petition raising 11 similar challenges which is pending in the Western Division of the Central District of California. 12 | See Thomas v. On Habeas Corpus, No. 2:24-cv-06816-MCS-KES (C.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2024). 13 | Thus, the Court finds in its discretion “and in furtherance of justice” the petition should be 14 | transferred to the Western Division of the Central District of California. 28 USC □□□ 1404(a), 15 2241(d). 16 Conclusion and Order 17 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED: 18 1. The Clerk of the Court shall transfer this action to the United States District Court for 19 the Central District of California, Western Division; and 20 2. All future filings shall reference the new case number assigned and shall be filed at: 21 United States District Court Central District of California 22 Western Division 350 West Ist Street STE 4311 23 Los Angeles, CA 90012 | Ir Is SO ORDERED. 25 | } ) Bo Dated: _ July 25, 2025 26 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28