Stanley H Solvey v. Ken Clark

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: January 31, 2023
• Docket: 2:23-cv-00745
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

Case 2:23-cv-00745-DOC-JC Document 2 Filed 01/31/23 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:135

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 STANLEY H. SOLVEY, Case No. 1:23-cv-00137-HBK (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 v. (Doc. No. 1) 14 KEN CLARK, 15 Respondent. 16 17 18 19 Petitioner is proceeding on his petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 20 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 1). To the extent discernable, Petitioner challenges his conviction 21 entered by the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. (Id. at 1). Los Angeles County is located 22 within the jurisdiction and venue of the Western Division of the United States District Court for 23 the Central District of California. 24 Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d), jurisdiction is proper in the judicial district where the 25 petitioner was convicted or where the petitioner is incarcerated. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d); 26 Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 428 (2004). However, “[f]or the convenience of parties and 27 witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other 28 district or division where it might have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Federal courts in 1 Case 2:23-cv-00745-DOC-JC Document Filed 01/31/23 Page 2of2 Page ID #:136

1 | California generally hear petitions for writ of habeas corpus in the district of conviction. Favor v. 2 | California, No. 116-CV-01912-DAD-EPG-HC, 2017 WL 2671006, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 21, 3 | 2017) (citing Laue v. Nelson, 279 F. Supp. 265, 266 (N.D. Cal. 1968)). 4 Thus, the Court finds in its discretion “and in furtherance of Justice” the petition should 5 || be transferred to the Central District of California. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a), 2241(d). The Court 6 | additionally notes, after a review of its own files, that Petitioner also has pending a previously 7 | filed federal petition in this Court that appears to challenge the same conviction at case number 8 | 1:22-cv-01634-CDB. Under this circumstance the Court would normally construe the instant 9 | petition as a motion to amend the previous petition as instructed by the Ninth Circuit. See Woods 10 | v. Carey, 525 F.3d 886, 889-90 (9th Cir. 2008). However, the Court defers to the Central District 11 | of California as to any further action in this matter. 12 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 13 1. The Clerk shall transfer this action to the United States District Court for the Central 14 | District of California, Western Division; and 15 2. All future filings shall reference the new case number assigned and shall be filed at: 16 United States District Court 17 Central District of California Western Division 18 255 East Temple Street 19 Los Angeles, CA 90012-3332

20 51 | Dated: _ January 31, 2023 Mihaw. fares Back HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 22 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28