IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
September 28, 2011
KEVIN CULBERSON, PETITIONER,
PAROLE BOARD, 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. In his pending petition for federal habeas relief petitioner is challenging a decision of the California Board of Parole Hearings (Board) to deny him parole. This court will not rule on petitioner's request to proceed in forma pauperis.
Petitioner is presently incarcerated at Chuckawalla Valley State Prison in Riverside County. He is serving a sentence in connection with a judgment of conviction rendered by the Fresno County Superior Court.
The general rule with regard to habeas applications is that both the United States District Court in the district where petitioner was convicted and the District Court where petitioner is incarcerated have jurisdiction over the claims. See Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court, 410 U.S. 484 (1973). In the instant case, the petitioner is challenging the Board's decision to deny him parole. Petitioner's place of incarceration where the challenged parole hearing took place is located in an area covered by the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Accordingly, in the furtherance of justice, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. This court has not ruled on petitioner's request to proceed in forma pauperis;
2. This matter is transferred to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Braden, 410 U.S. at 499 n.15; 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d).
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.