Michael E. Pryor v. The People of the State of California

C.D. California

Michael E. Pryor v. The People of the State of California

DecidedJune 18, 2020

Docket2:20-cv-05428

StatusUnknown

This text of Michael E. Pryor v. The People of the State of California (Michael E. Pryor v. The People of the State of California) 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

Michael E. Pryor v. The People of the State of California, (C.D. Cal. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

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

11 MICHAEL E. PRYOR, Case No. 1:20-cv-00827-EPG-HC

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

14 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 15 Respondent. 16

17 18 Petitioner Michael E. Pryor is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ 19 of habeas corpus. 20 When a state prisoner files a habeas petition in a state that contains two or more federal 21 judicial districts, the petition may be filed in either the judicial district in which the petitioner is 22 presently confined or the judicial district in which he was convicted and sentenced. See 28 23 U.S.C. § 2241(d); Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 442 (2004) (quoting Carbo v. United 24 States, 364 U.S. 611, 618, 81 S. Ct. 338, 5 L. Ed. 2d 329 (1961)). Petitions challenging the 25 execution of a sentence are preferably heard in the district where the inmate is confined. See 26 Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989). Petitions challenging convictions or 27 sentences are preferably heard in the district of conviction. See Laue v. Nelson, 279 F. Supp. 1 | filed action, a district court, “in the exercise of its discretion and in furtherance of justice[,] may 2 | transfer” the habeas petition to another federal district for hearing and determination. Id.; see also 3 | 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (court may transfer any civil action “to any other district or division where it 4 | might have been brought” for convenience of parties or “in the interest of justice”). 5 Here, Petitioner is challenging his criminal conviction in the Los Angeles County 6 | Superior Court, and thus, the petition is preferably heard in the district of conviction, which is 7 | the Central District of California. Therefore, this action will be transferred. This Court has not 8 | ruled on Petitioner’s motion to appoint counsel. 9 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is TRANSFERRED to the 10 | United States District Court for the Central District of California. 11 Db IT IS SO ORDERED. 13} Dated: _ June 17, 2020 hey — 14 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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 MICHAEL E. PRYOR, Case No. 1:20-cv-00827-EPG-HC

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

14 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 15 Respondent. 16

17 18 Petitioner Michael E. Pryor is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ 19 of habeas corpus. 20 When a state prisoner files a habeas petition in a state that contains two or more federal 21 judicial districts, the petition may be filed in either the judicial district in which the petitioner is 22 presently confined or the judicial district in which he was convicted and sentenced. See 28 23 U.S.C. § 2241(d); Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 442 (2004) (quoting Carbo v. United 24 States, 364 U.S. 611, 618, 81 S. Ct. 338, 5 L. Ed. 2d 329 (1961)). Petitions challenging the 25 execution of a sentence are preferably heard in the district where the inmate is confined. See 26 Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989). Petitions challenging convictions or 27 sentences are preferably heard in the district of conviction. See Laue v. Nelson, 279 F. Supp. 1 | filed action, a district court, “in the exercise of its discretion and in furtherance of justice[,] may 2 | transfer” the habeas petition to another federal district for hearing and determination. Id.; see also 3 | 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (court may transfer any civil action “to any other district or division where it 4 | might have been brought” for convenience of parties or “in the interest of justice”). 5 Here, Petitioner is challenging his criminal conviction in the Los Angeles County 6 | Superior Court, and thus, the petition is preferably heard in the district of conviction, which is 7 | the Central District of California. Therefore, this action will be transferred. This Court has not 8 | ruled on Petitioner’s motion to appoint counsel. 9 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is TRANSFERRED to the 10 | United States District Court for the Central District of California. 11 Db IT IS SO ORDERED. 13} Dated: _ June 17, 2020 hey — 14 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Michael E. Pryor v. The People of the State of California, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/michael-e-pryor-v-the-people-of-the-state-of-california-cacd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack