(HC) Trammell v. State of California

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 NICHOLAS KENNETH TRAMMELL, Case No. 21-00520-EJD (PR) 11 Petitioner, ORDER OF TRANSER 12 v.

14 STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

15 Respondent.

17 18 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas 19 corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his state conviction out of Stanislaus County. 20 Dkt. No. 1. Venue for a habeas action is proper in either the district of confinement or the 21 district of conviction, 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). Federal courts in California traditionally have 22 chosen to hear petitions challenging a conviction or sentence in the district of conviction or 23 sentencing. See Habeas L.R. 2254-3(b)(1); Dannenberg v. Ingle, 831 F. Supp. 767, 768 24 (N.D. Cal. 1993); Laue v. Nelson, 279 F. Supp. 265, 266 (N.D. Cal. 1968). Here, 25 Petitioner is currently confined at the California Institution for Men in Chino, San 26 Bernardino County, but his conviction was out of Stanislaus County. Dkt. 1 at 2. 27 Stanislaus County lies within the venue of the Eastern District of California. See 28 1 |} U.S.C. § 1391(b). Accordingly, this case is TRANSFERRED to the United States District 2 || Court for the Eastern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). 3 The Clerk shall terminate all pending motions and transfer the entire file to the 4 || Eastern District of California. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 || Dated: 1/27/2021 7 EDWARD J. DAVILA United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 3 12 14

15 16

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Order of Transfer 27 PRO-SE\EJD\HC.21\00520.Trammell_transfer