Thomas v. California Board of Prisons and Parole Hearings et al

Filing 7

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE to Central District of California.. Signed by Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 7/28/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(tlS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/28/2014)[Transferred from California Northern on 7/30/2014.]

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

KEVIN THOMAS,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Petitioner,
12

Case No. 14-cv-02194-JSC
ORDER OF TRANSFER

v.
13
14

CALIFORNIA BOARD OF PRISONS
AND PAROLE HEARINGS, et al.,

15

Respondents

Dkt. Nos. 5, 6

16

Petitioner, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this petition for a writ of

17
18

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 1 The petition raises two claims. The first claim is

19

that prison officials and officials of the California Board of Parole Hearings (“BPH”) have

20

incorrectly designated him with an “R suffix” based on a prior arrest for a sex offense. He

21

claims that the designation is incorrect because the sex offense charges were dismissed in

22

2010. He alleges that the “R suffix” designation prevents him from earning good time

23

credits and receiving other privileges. Petitioner’s other claim is that his attorney in a prior

24

case provided ineffective assistance. In that case, he was arrested in Los Angeles County

25

for receiving stolen goods in 2010, he was convicted, and her received a two-year

26
27
1

28

Petitioner has consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(c). (Dkt. No. 4.)

1

sentence. 2 Petitioner also argues that his attorney’s employer and the State Bar of

2

California are “liable” for his attorney’s deficient performance.

3

A petition for a writ of habeas corpus made by a person in custody under the

4

judgment and sentence of a state court of a state which contains two or more federal

5

judicial districts may be filed in either the district of confinement or the district of

6

conviction. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). Each of such districts shall have concurrent

7

jurisdiction to entertain the petition; however, the district court for the district where the

8

petition is filed may transfer the petition to the other district in the furtherance of justice.

9

See id. Federal courts in California traditionally have chosen to hear petitions challenging
a conviction or sentence in the district of conviction. See Dannenberg v. Ingle, 831 F.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Supp. 767, 768 (N.D. Cal. 1993); Laue v. Nelson, 279 F. Supp. 265, 266 (N.D. Cal. 1968).

12

If the petition is directed to the manner in which a sentence is being executed, e.g., if it

13

involves parole or time credits claims, the district of confinement is the preferable forum.

14

See Habeas L.R. 2254-3(b)(2); Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989).

15

Petitioner’s first claim is directed to the manner in which his sentence is being

16

executed insofar as he claims he is being denied time credits because of his “R suffix”

17

designation. The proper venue for such a claim is the district in which he is confined, the

18

Central District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(c) (San Luis Obispo County lies within

19

the venue of the Central District of California). Petitioner’s second claim challenges a

20

conviction from Los Angeles County, and the proper venue for such a claim is the district

21

of his conviction, also the Central District of California. See id. (Los Angeles County lies

22

within the venue of the Central District of California).

23

Accordingly, in the interest of justice, this case is TRANSFERRED to the United

24

States District Court for the Central District of California. In light of this transfer, ruling

25

on Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and motion for appointment of

26
27
2

28

He completed that sentence in 2012. He is currently incarcerated based on a different conviction
in 2012 for burglary.
2

1

counsel are deferred to the Central District. The Clerk shall terminate these motions from

2

this Court’s docket (docket numbers 2, 6), and shall transfer this matter forthwith.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 28, 2014
_________________________________
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3