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

District Court, C.D. California·Decided June 18, 2020·No. 2:20-cv-05428·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

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

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

CALIFORNIA, Respondent.

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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

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

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

CALIFORNIA, Respondent.

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

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

Pincite

Michael E. Pryor v. The People of the State of California (Michael E. Pryor v. The People of the State of California) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related