Melvin Joseph Simmons v. Kathleen Allison

C.D. California

Melvin Joseph Simmons v. Kathleen Allison

District Court, C.D. California·Decided September 26, 2022·No. 2:22-cv-06946·Unknown

Opinion

Case 2:22-cv-06946-TJH-E Document 5 Filed 09/26/22 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:82

MELVIN JOSEPH SIMMONS, Case No. 1:22-cv-01031-HBK (HC) Petitioner, ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA v. (Doc. No. 1) Respondents. Petitioner is proceeding on his petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 1). To the extent discernable, Petitioner challenges his state sentence and conviction entered by the Superior Court of Los Angeles County in case number A917709. (Id. at 4). Los Angeles County is located within the jurisdiction and venue of the Western Division of the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d), jurisdiction is proper in the judicial district where the petitioner was convicted or where the petitioner is incarcerated. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d); Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 428 (2004). However, “[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Federal courts in California generally hear petitions for writ of habeas corpus in the district of conviction. Favor v. 1 Case 2:22-cv-06946-TJH-E Document5 Filed 09/26/22 Page 2of2 Page ID#:83

California, No. 116-CV-01912-DAD-EPG-HC, 2017 WL 2671006, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 21, 2017) (citing Laue v. Nelson, 279 F. Supp. 265, 266 (N.D. Cal. 1968)). Thus, the court finds in its discretion “and in furtherance of justice” the petition should be transferred to the Central District of California. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a), 2241(d). Further, the Court declines to rule on Petitioner’s pending motion for a temporary restraining order. (Doc. No. 2). Accordingly: 1. The Clerk shall transfer this action to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division; and 2. All future filings shall reference the new case number assigned and shall be filed at: United States District Court Central District of California Western Division 255 East Temple Street Los Angeles, CA 90012-3332

Dated: _ September 26, 2022 oe Zh. Sareh Zackte HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Case 2:22-cv-06946-TJH-E Document 5 Filed 09/26/22 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:82

MELVIN JOSEPH SIMMONS, Case No. 1:22-cv-01031-HBK (HC) Petitioner, ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA v. (Doc. No. 1) Respondents. Petitioner is proceeding on his petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 1). To the extent discernable, Petitioner challenges his state sentence and conviction entered by the Superior Court of Los Angeles County in case number A917709. (Id. at 4). Los Angeles County is located within the jurisdiction and venue of the Western Division of the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d), jurisdiction is proper in the judicial district where the petitioner was convicted or where the petitioner is incarcerated. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d); Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 428 (2004). However, “[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Federal courts in California generally hear petitions for writ of habeas corpus in the district of conviction. Favor v. 1 Case 2:22-cv-06946-TJH-E Document5 Filed 09/26/22 Page 2of2 Page ID#:83

California, No. 116-CV-01912-DAD-EPG-HC, 2017 WL 2671006, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 21, 2017) (citing Laue v. Nelson, 279 F. Supp. 265, 266 (N.D. Cal. 1968)). Thus, the court finds in its discretion “and in furtherance of justice” the petition should be transferred to the Central District of California. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a), 2241(d). Further, the Court declines to rule on Petitioner’s pending motion for a temporary restraining order. (Doc. No. 2). Accordingly: 1. The Clerk shall transfer this action to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division; and 2. All future filings shall reference the new case number assigned and shall be filed at: United States District Court Central District of California Western Division 255 East Temple Street Los Angeles, CA 90012-3332

Dated: _ September 26, 2022 oe Zh. Sareh Zackte HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Melvin Joseph Simmons v. Kathleen Allison, (C.D. Cal. 2022).

Pincite

Melvin Joseph Simmons v. Kathleen Allison (Melvin Joseph Simmons v. Kathleen Allison) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related