Hc Towner V Silva

Jeremy M. Towner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a habeas corpus action under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the Eastern District of California challenging a Santa Cruz County conviction. The court determined the case should have been filed in the Northern District of California where the conviction occurred and ordered the transfer of the matter to that district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).

The court must determine whether the habeas corpus petition was filed in the proper judicial district. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), venue for a civil action must be in a district where a defendant resides, where substantial events occurred, or where the defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction. Since the petitioner is challenging a conviction from Santa Cruz County in the Northern District of California, the petition should have been filed there rather than in the Eastern District. The court orders the case transferred to the correct district under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).

The court ordered the transfer of this habeas corpus case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The petitioner filed in the Eastern District, but the conviction being challenged originated from Santa Cruz County, which falls under the Northern District's jurisdiction. The court determined this was the proper venue and granted the transfer in the interest of justice.

The court ordered that this habeas corpus matter be transferred from the Eastern District of California to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, as the proper venue for this case.

The federal venue statute 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) requires civil actions to be brought in judicial districts where defendants reside, where substantial events occurred, or where the defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction. When a case is filed in the wrong district, 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) allows a federal court to transfer it to the correct district in the interest of justice.

Starnes v. McGuire

Sheila K. Oberto