Filed: Dec. 20, 2018
Latest Update: Dec. 20, 2018
Summary: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED OR TRANSFERRED JOSEPH C. SPERO , Chief Magistrate Judge . Petitioner Ryan Judson Moore seeks federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254 from his state convictions. See Pet. (dkt. 1). The petition for such relief is subject to review under 28 U.S.C. 2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Moore is in custody at the Pleasant Valley State Prison in Coalinga, California after being convicted in Solano County of secon
Summary: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED OR TRANSFERRED JOSEPH C. SPERO , Chief Magistrate Judge . Petitioner Ryan Judson Moore seeks federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254 from his state convictions. See Pet. (dkt. 1). The petition for such relief is subject to review under 28 U.S.C. 2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Moore is in custody at the Pleasant Valley State Prison in Coalinga, California after being convicted in Solano County of second..
More
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED OR TRANSFERRED
JOSEPH C. SPERO, Chief Magistrate Judge.
Petitioner Ryan Judson Moore seeks federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 from his state convictions. See Pet. (dkt. 1). The petition for such relief is subject to review under 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.
Moore is in custody at the Pleasant Valley State Prison in Coalinga, California after being convicted in Solano County of second degree murder with the use of a firearm in 2013 and sentenced in 2014 to forty years to life in prison. Pet. ¶¶ 11, 13, 14. A California Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment against Moore, and the California Supreme Court summarily denied a petition for review. Id. ¶ 15.
Where an application for a writ of habeas corpus is made by a person in custody under the judgment and sentence of a State court of a State which contains two or more Federal judicial districts, the application may be filed in the district court for the district wherein such person is in custody or in the district court for the district within which the State court was held which convicted and sentenced him and each of such district courts shall have concurrent jurisdiction to entertain the application. The district court for the district wherein such an application is filed in the exercise of its discretion and in furtherance of justice may transfer the application to the other district court for hearing and determination.
28 U.S.C. § 2241(d); see also Zenteno v. Gipson, No. CV 14-01426 VBF (MRW), 2014 WL 1795175 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2014) (holding that § 2241(d) establishes a jurisdictional requirement and granting a motion to transfer to another district).
Both Solano County, where Moore was prosecuted and convicted, and Coalinga, where Moore is in custody, fall within the Eastern District of California. Moore is therefore ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why his petition should not be dismissed or transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. Moore shall file a response to this order no later than January 17, 2019.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
