Jason William Brokken v. Kathleen Allison

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: August 29, 2022
• Docket: 5:22-cv-01526
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

Case 5:22-cv-01526-RGK-SK Document 2 Filed 08/29/22 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:99

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

11 JASON WILLIAM BROKKEN, Case No. 1:22-cv-01084-EPG-HC

12 Petitioner, ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 v.

14 KATHLEEN ALLISON, et al., 15 Respondents.

16 17 Petitioner Jason William Brokken is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for 18 writ of habeas corpus 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 28 filed action, a district court, “in the exercise of its discretion and in furtherance of justice[,] may 1 Case 5:22-cv-01526-RGK-SK Document 2 Filed 08/29/22 Page 2of2 Page ID#:100

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 is challenging his criminal conviction in the Riverside County Superior 5 | Court, and thus, the petition is preferably heard in the district of conviction, which is the Central 6 | District of California. Therefore, this action will be transferred. 7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is TRANSFERRED to the 8 | United States District Court for the Central District of California. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11} Dated: _ August 29, 2022 [sf ey — 2 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28