Johnson v. United States Parole Commission

Filing 7

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE to the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 2/3/2015. (Jessen, A) [Transferred from caed on 2/5/2015.]

Download PDF
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 MICHAEL SCOTT JOHNSON, 5 6 7 8 Case No. 1:14-cv-02092-SMS HC Petitioner, ORDER TRANSFERRING THIS CASE TO THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA v. UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION, Respondent. 9 10 11 On December 31, 2014, Petitioner Michael Scott Johnson filed a pro se petition for writ of 12 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 2241. Shortly thereafter, Petitioner was transferred to the 13 Phoenix Federal Correction Institution, Phoenix, Arizona. 14 15 16 A habeas action is subject to jurisdictional and statutory limitations. See Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484 (1973). The proper respondent in a habeas corpus action is the warden of the institution in which the petitioner is confined. Rumsfield v. Padilla, 542 17 18 19 20 21 22 U.S. 426, 434 (2004). Because the habeas petition must be reviewed by the district court in the district where the petitioner is confined (United States v. Giddings, 740 F.2d 770, 772 (9th Cir. 1984)), this Court must transfer the petition to the District Court for District of Arizona. Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS that this case be TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 26 Dated: February 3, 2015 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28 1

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?