Patterson v. Andes

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: March 31, 2025
• Docket: 5:25-cv-02819
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

] 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 VESTER L. PATTERSON, ; Petitioner, Case No. 5:25-cv-02819-EJD (PR)

‘ y ORDER OF TRANSFER

7 WARDEN CHANCE ANDES, Respondent 9 Petitioner, who is currently confined at the San Quentin Rehabilitation Center, filed 10 || a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.§ 2241, challenging his 11 |) confinement without an “adjudication of guilt” in state court. Dkt. No. 1. Venue for a habeas action is proper in either the district of confinement or the 13 || district of conviction, 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). Federal courts in California traditionally have 14 || chosen to hear petitions challenging a conviction or sentence in the district of conviction or 3 15 || sentencing. See Habeas L.R. 2254-3(b)(1); Dannenberg v. Ingle, 831 F. Supp. 767, 768 16 || (N.D. Cal. 1993); Laue v. Nelson, 279 F. Supp. 265, 266 (N.D. Cal. 1968). Here,

17 || Petitioner is challenging his conviction out of Los Angeles County. Dkt. No. | at 2. Los 18 Angeles County lies within the venue of the Western Division for the Central District of 19 |) California. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(c). Therefore, venue properly lies in that district and not in 20 || this one. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 21 This case is hereby TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the 22 || Central District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). 23 The Clerk shall terminate all pending motions and transfer the entire file to the 24 || Western Division for the Central District of California. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 || Dated: March 31, 2025 27 EDWARD J. DAVILA 08 United States District Judge