IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
July 9, 2009
PAUL STAFFIERO, PETITIONER,
KEN CLARK, WARDEN, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
Petitioner, a prisoner without counsel, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has paid the filing fee.
Petitioner is presently incarcerated at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility in Kings County. Petitioner is serving a sentence for a conviction rendered by the San Diego County Superior Court. Petitioner is challenging an October 23, 2006 denial of parole suitability. In habeas corpus cases, venue is proper: (1) in the district of confinement, or (2) in the district of "conviction and sentencing." 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). Because it is difficult to stretch "conviction and sentencing" into a decision denying parole suitability, only the first venue option is appropriate. Moreover, since prisoners are not normally transferred about for parole eligibility hearings, the district of confinement would normally be the district of "conviction and sentencing" even if that rubric were utilized in the parole eligibility setting.*fn1
Petitioner is confined in Kings County, which is also where his October 23, 2006 parole suitability hearing took place. Thus, this action should have been commenced in the district court in Fresno.*fn2 Local Rule 3-120(d).
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. This action is transferred to the district court in Fresno. See Local Rule 3-120(f).
2. The Clerk of Court shall assign a new case number.
3. All future filings shall bear the new case number and shall be filed at: United States District Court Eastern District of California 2500 Tulare Street Fresno, CA 93721