UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
September 30, 2010
PETER J. ADERHOLT, PLAINTIFF,
CALIFORNIA BOARD OF PARDONS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Andrew Guilford United States District Judge
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER TRANSFERRING ACTION TO THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
In this federal petition for writ of habeas corpus, petitioner Peter J. Aderholt ("Petitioner"), in state custody and proceeding pro se, challenges the denial of parole. (Pet. at 2, 5.) Petitioner is incarcerated at the High Desert State Prison in Susanville, California. (Pet. at 1-2.) Susanville is located in Lassen County, which lies within the venue of the Eastern District of California. 28 U.S.C. § 84(b).
Venue is proper in a habeas action in either the district of confinement or the district of conviction. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). Where, however, a petitioner challenges the manner in which his sentence is being executed, for example, a challenge to the denial of parole, the district of confinement is the preferable forum. See Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989) (explaining, in a § 2241 action, that "[t]he proper forum to challenge the execution of a sentence is the district where the prisoner is confined"); see also Hill v. Almager, 2008 WL 1944552, at *1 (C.D. Cal. May 1, 2008) (ordering transfer of habeas action challenging parole decision to district of confinement); Bennett v. Cal. Bd. of Prison Terms, 2008 WL 863986, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2008) (same); Williams v. Sisto, 2007 WL 4357626, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2007) (same). As Lassen County lies within the Eastern District, the Court hereby ORDERS that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), and in the interest of justice, this action be TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, and that the Clerk of this Court shall effect such transfer.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall serve a copy of this order on Petitioner.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.