UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

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

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CA, Respondent.

Petitioner, a state prisoner, has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Docket No. 1.) It is unclear whether he is challenging the computation of time credits, (id.), or the underlying conviction out of Sacramento County, (id. at 6-8). Venue for a habeas action is proper in either the district of confinement or the district of conviction, 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). Federal courts in California traditionally have chosen to hear petitions challenging a conviction or sentence in the district of conviction or sentencing. See Habeas L.R. 2254-3(b)(1); Dannenberg v. Ingle, 831 F. Supp. 767, 768 (N.D. Cal. 1993); Laue v. Nelson, 279 F. Supp. 265, 266 (N.D. Cal. 1968). But if the 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

PRO. SEED 19\07698Griffin_transfer(ED)