Griffin v. Price

— 1 — — 2 — — 3 — — 4 — — 5 — — 6 — — 7 — 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA — 10 — 11 DEXTER LAWRENCE GRIFFIN, Case No. 21-07661 EJD (PR) 12 Petitioner, ORDER OF TRANSER 13 v. 14 BRANDON PRICE, 15 Respondent. — 16 — — 17 — 18 Petitioner, a state patient at the Coalinga State Hospital, has filed a pro se petition 19 for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 , challenging the retroactive application 20 of the “SVPA” (Sexually Violent Predator Act). Dkt. No. 1. Coalinga State Hospital lies 21 in Fresno County, which is within the jurisdiction of the Eastern District of California. See — 22 — 28 U.S.C. § 84 (b). 23 Section 2241 allows “the Supreme Court, any justice thereof, the district courts and 24 any circuit judge” to grant writs of habeas corpus “within their respective jurisdictions.” — 25 — 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (a). A federal court may not entertain an action over which it has no 26 jurisdiction. Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 865 (9th Cir. 2000) (per curiam). 27 Motions contesting the legality of a federal conviction or sentence must be filed pursuant 1 864; see 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (a). In contrast, challenges to the manner, location, or conditions 2 of a sentence’s execution must be brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the custodial 3 court (here, the Eastern District of California). Hernandez, 204 F.3d at 864 . 4 Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court, 410 U.S. 484 (1973), made clear that “venue 5 considerations may, and frequently will, argue in favor of adjudication of the habeas claim 6 in the jurisdiction where the habeas petitioner is confined.” Chatman-Bey v. Thornburgh, — 7 — 864 F.2d 804, 814 (D.C. Cir. 1988); see also McCoy v. United States Bd. of Parole, 537 8 F.2d 962, 966 (8th Cir. 1976) (“Once the custodian of the petitioner is properly served, the 9 question is no longer jurisdictional, but one of the most convenient forum for litigation”). 10 Federal courts generally take the position that the district of confinement “is normally the 11 forum most convenient to the parties,” McCoy, 537 F.2d at 966, and therefore exercise 12 discretion in transferring petitions to the district of confinement “in the interests of justice” 13 pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 1404 (a). See id.; see also Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244 , 249-50 14 (9th Cir. 1989) (suggesting that even where district court has personal jurisdiction over 15 custodian, preferred forum is district where petitioner is confined). This practice is 16 supported by the fact that a prisoner’s records follow him to the place of incarceration and 17 in that it promotes uniformity in the filing of Section 2241 petitions; in contrast, a system 18 that allows a prisoner in California to challenge the execution of his federal sentence in 19 any of the four district courts within the state, since they all have personal jurisdiction over 20 any California custodian, works against this. A transfer to the district of confinement on 21 convenient forum grounds is therefore preferable as long as no undue delay is created. See 22 Chatman-Bey, 864 F.2d at 814 . 23 The Eastern District of California, where Petitioner is currently confined, appears to 24 be the proper forum for this habeas petition. In the interests of justice, this Court exercises 25 its discretion to TRANSFER the petition forthwith to the Eastern District of California. 26 See 28 U.S.C. § 1406 (a); Habeas L.R. 2254-3(b)(1). 1 Eastern District of California. 2 IT ISSO ORDERED. 3 || Dated: _ 10/8/2021) O_o et YY 4 EDWARD J. DAVILA United States District Judge — 5 — — 6 — — 7 — — 8 — — 9 — — 10 — — 11 — — 12 — = 13 z 15 — 16 — — 18 — — 19 — — 20 — — 21 — — 22 — — 23 — — 24 — Order of Transfer 25 PRO-SE\EJD\HC.21\0766 1Griffin_trans fer(ED) — 26 — — 27 —