IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
August 15, 2011
JEFFREY A. TATE, PETITIONER,
TERRY GONZALEZ, RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel, has filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On July 27, 2011, petitioner paid the filing fee.
Petitioner challenges the 2009 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) (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 the California Men's Colony, San Luis Obispo, County of San Luis Obispo, California, which lies in the Central District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(a).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 2241(d), courts in both the district of conviction and the district of confinement have concurrent jurisdiction over applications for habeas corpus filed by state prisoners. While petitioner was convicted in this district, for the reasons set forth supra, the proper forum for the instant challenge is in the district of confinement. In the interest of justice, this court may transfer this action "to any other district where it might have been brought." 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Therefore, in the interest of justice, this action will be transferred to the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d); 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.