Rosenberger v. Hill

Full title: PAUL R. ROSENBERGER, Petitioner, v. JUDGE HILL, et al., Respondents

Court: United States District Court, N.D. California

Date published: May 17, 2006

No. C 06-2982 JF (PR) (N.D. Cal. May. 17, 2006)

Opinion

No. C 06-2982 JF (PR).

May 17, 2006

ORDER OF TRANSFER

JEREMY FOGEL, District Judge

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his 2002 criminal conviction in Santa Barbara Superior Court.

Venue for a habeas action is proper in either the district of confinement or the district of conviction, 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d); however, petitions challenging a conviction are preferably heard in the district of conviction. See Habeas L.R. 2254-3(a); Laue v. Nelson, 279 F. Supp. 265, 266 (N.D. Cal. 1968); cf. Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989) (district of confinement best forum to review execution of sentence).

Accordingly, this case is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b), 1404(a); Habeas L.R. 2254-3(b)(1). The Clerk shall terminate all pending motions and transfer the entire file to the Central District of California.

IT IS SO ORDERED.