Jeske v. Borla

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: August 11, 2025
• Docket: 4:25-cv-04214
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 MARCUS ALLEN JESKE, Case No. 25-cv-04214-KAW (PR)

9 Petitioner, ORDER OF TRANSFER v. 10

11 EDWARD BORLA, Warden, Respondent. 12

13 Petitioner, a state prisoner who is incarcerated at the California Training Facility in 14 Soledad California, has filed this pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging a 15 judgment of conviction from the Tulare County Superior Court. Dkt. 1. This action has been 16 assigned to the undersigned Magistrate Judge. Dkt. 2. Petitioner has also filed a motion for leave 17 to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. 5. 18 A petition for a writ of habeas corpus made by a person in custody under the judgment and 19 sentence of a state court of a State which contains two or more federal judicial districts may be 20 filed in either the district of confinement or the district of conviction. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). 21 The district court where the petition is filed, however, may transfer the petition to the other district 22 in the furtherance of justice. See id. Federal courts in California traditionally have chosen to hear 23 petitions challenging a conviction or sentence in the district of conviction. See Dannenberg v. 24 Ingle, 831 F. Supp. 767, 767 (N.D. Cal. 1993); Laue v. Nelson, 279 F. Supp. 265, 266 (N.D. Cal. 25 1968). If the petition is directed to the manner in which a sentence is being executed, e.g., if it 26 involves parole or time credits claims, the district of confinement is the preferable forum. See 27 Habeas L.R. 2254-3(a); Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989). 1 Superior Court, which is within the venue of the Eastern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. 2 § 84. Because Petitioner is challenging his conviction, venue for the instant habeas action is 3 || proper in the district of conviction. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). 4 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) and Habeas L.R. 2254-3(b), and in the interest of justice, 5 this action is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of 6 California.! The Clerk of the Court shall transfer the case forthwith. 7 All remaining pending motions are TERMINATED on this court’s docket as no longer 8 || pending in this district. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 Dated: August 11, 2025 ll a (12 ANDIS A. WESTMORE 13 United States Magistrate Judge

15 16 € = 17 6 Zz 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ' Venue transfer is a non-dispositive matter and, thus, it falls within the scope of the jurisdiction of the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).