Joaquin Diaz v. Martin Gamboa

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: February 18, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-01369
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOAQUIN DIAZ, Case No. 1:25-cv-00196-CDB (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE WESTERN DIVISION OF THE 13 v. CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 14 MARTIN GAMBOA, (Doc. 1) 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner Joaquin Diaz (“Petitioner”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition 18 for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1). Petitioner challenges his June 19 22, 2017, conviction entered by the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. (Id. at 30). Los 20 Angeles County is located within the jurisdiction and venue of the Western Division of the 21 Central District of California. 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 US. 484, 4998 & n.15 (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 2017 conviction obtained in Los Angeles 9 | County, the better forum for his claims is the division of the district court where he was 10 | convicted. Thus, the Court finds in its discretion “and in furtherance of justice” the petition 11 | should be transferred to the Western Division of the Central District of California. 28 USC §§ 12 | 1404(a), 2241(d). 13 Conclusion and Order 14 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED: 15 1. The Clerk of the Court shall transfer this action to the United States District Court for 16 the Central District of California, Western Division; and 17 2. All future filings shall reference the new case number assigned and shall be filed at: 18 United States District Court Central District of California 19 Western Division 350 West Ist Street STE 4311 20 Los Angeles, CA 90012 21 | Tr IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ February 18, 2025 | hannD Pr 23 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28