1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

DEXTER L. GRIFFIN,

11 Case No. 19-07698 EJD (PR) Petitioner, 12 ORDER OF TRANSER v. 13

14 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CA, 15 Respondent.

16

17 18 Petitioner, a state prisoner, has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus 19 under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Docket No. 1.) It is unclear whether he is challenging the 20 computation of time credits, (id.), or the underlying conviction out of Sacramento County, 21 (id. at 6-8). 22 Venue for a habeas action is proper in either the district of confinement or the 23 district of conviction, 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). Federal courts in California traditionally have 24 chosen to hear petitions challenging a conviction or sentence in the district of conviction or 25 sentencing. See Habeas L.R. 2254-3(b)(1); Dannenberg v. Ingle, 831 F. Supp. 767, 768 26 (N.D. Cal. 1993); Laue v. Nelson, 279 F. Supp. 265, 266 (N.D. Cal. 1968). But if the 27 petition challenges the manner in which a sentence is being executed, e.g., if it involves 1 Habeas L.R. 2254-3(b)(2); Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989). 2 Petitioner was convicted in Sacramento County which lies within the Eastern 3 || District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(b). Petitioner is currently confined at Coalinga 4 || State Hospital, (Docket No. 1 at 1), in Fresno County which is also within the Eastern 5 || District. Id. Therefore, the venue for this action is in that district and not in this one. See 6 |} id.; Habeas L.R. 2254-3(a)(1). Accordingly, this case is TRANSFERRED to the United 7 States District Court for the Eastern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); g || Habeas L.R. 2254-3(b)(1). 9 The Clerk shall terminate all pending motions and transfer the entire file to the 10 || Eastern District of California. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. «12 || Dated: _ 2/7/2020

EDWARD J. DAVILA

3 United States District Judge

° 15 16

Z 18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PRO. SEED 19\07698Griffin_transfer(ED) 26 27