Jason Robert Porter v. Warden of P.V.S.P.

C.D. California

Jason Robert Porter v. Warden of P.V.S.P.

DecidedSeptember 9, 2025

Docket2:25-cv-08852

StatusUnknown

This text of Jason Robert Porter v. Warden of P.V.S.P. (Jason Robert Porter v. Warden of P.V.S.P.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jason Robert Porter v. Warden of P.V.S.P., (C.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 JASON ROBERT PORTER, Case No. 1:25-cv-01134-SAB-HC

12 Petitioner, ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 13 v. THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 14 WARDEN OF P.V.S.P.,

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 challenges a criminal judgment from the San Luis Obispo County 5 | Superior Court. (ECF No. 1 at 1.) Therefore, venue is proper in the district of conviction, which 6 | is the Central District of California. 7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is TRANSFERRED to the 8 | United States District Court for the Central District of California. This Court has not ruled on the 9 | request to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 2.) 10 i IT IS SO ORDERED. FA. ee 12 | Dated: _ September 9, 2025 STANLEY A. BOONE 13 United States Magistrate Judge 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

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 JASON ROBERT PORTER, Case No. 1:25-cv-01134-SAB-HC

12 Petitioner, ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 13 v. THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 14 WARDEN OF P.V.S.P.,

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 challenges a criminal judgment from the San Luis Obispo County 5 | Superior Court. (ECF No. 1 at 1.) Therefore, venue is proper in the district of conviction, which 6 | is the Central District of California. 7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is TRANSFERRED to the 8 | United States District Court for the Central District of California. This Court has not ruled on the 9 | request to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 2.) 10 i IT IS SO ORDERED. FA. ee 12 | Dated: _ September 9, 2025 STANLEY A. BOONE 13 United States Magistrate Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Jason Robert Porter v. Warden of P.V.S.P., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jason-robert-porter-v-warden-of-pvsp-cacd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack