IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
November 10, 2010
DONALD AMOS, PETITIONER,
JAMES D. HARTLEY, WARDEN, RESPONDENT.
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with a request to proceed in forma pauperis. This court will not rule on petitioner's request to proceed in forma pauperis.
Petitioner challenges a 2008 decision of the California Board of Parole Hearings to deny him parole. Consequently, the instant petition is one for review of the execution of a sentence imposed by a California state court. See Rosas v. Nielsen, 428 F.3d 1229, 1232 (9th Cir. 2005), rev'd on other grounds, Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546 (9th Cir. 2010) (denial of parole is "a decision 'regarding the execution' of" a prison sentence). As a general rule, "[t]he proper forum to challenge the execution of a sentence is the district where the prisoner is confined." Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989). Petitioner is incarcerated at Avenal State Prison, County of Kings, which lies in the Fresno Division of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. See Local Rule 120(d).
Pursuant to Local Rule 120(f), a civil action which has not been commenced in the proper division of a court may, on the court's own motion, be transferred to the proper division of the court. Therefore, this action will be transferred to the Fresno Division of the court.
Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. This action is transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California sitting in Fresno; and
2. All future filings shall reference the new Fresno case number assigned and shall be filed at:
United States District Court Eastern District of California 2500 Tulare Street Fresno, CA 93721
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.