Craig Stevenson v. Shawn Hatton

Filing 4

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Jay C. Gandhi; Transferring Action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT the Petition be TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.(see document for additional details) (mba)

1
2

O/JS-6

3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

CRAIG STEVENSON,
Petitioner,

13

v.

14
15

SHAWN HATTON, Warden,
Respondent.

16
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. LA CV 16-5400 RSWL (JCG)
ORDER TRANSFERRING ACTION
TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

On July 11, 2016, petitioner Craig Stevenson (“Petitioner”), a California

18
19

prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”).

20

[See Dkt. No. 1 at 11.] Therein, Petitioner – who is incarcerated at Correctional

21

Training Facility, in Monterey County, California – challenges a parole determination.

22

(Pet. at 1, 2.) Monterey County lies within the venue of the Northern District of

23

California. 28 U.S.C. § 84(a).

24

Venue is proper in a habeas action in either the district of confinement or the

25

district of conviction. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). The district court in which a petition is

26

filed, however, may “in the exercise of its discretion and in furtherance of justice”

27

transfer the petition to the other district where it could have been filed. Id.

28

//
1

When a petitioner challenges the manner in which his sentence is being

1
2

executed – for example, a challenge to the denial of parole – the district of

3

confinement is the preferable forum. Cf. Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th

4

Cir. 1989) (explaining, in a § 2241 action, that “[t]he proper forum to challenge the

5

execution of a sentence is the district where the prisoner is confined”); see also Turner

6

v. State of California, 2016 WL 3951371, at *3 (C.D. Cal. July 21, 2016) (ordering

7

transfer of habeas action challenging parole decision to district of confinement);

8

Fordjour v. Ayers, 2008 WL 162527, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2008) (“[V]enue over

9

parole matters is preferable in the district of confinement.”). Indeed, the district of

10

confinement will generally be where relevant evidence, witnesses, and records are

11

located. See 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (providing for transfer of venue for convenience of

12

parties and witnesses and interests of justice).
Here, Petitioner is challenging the execution of his sentence, and is confined

13
14

within the Northern District of California.1 (Pet. at 1, 2.) Petitioner has consented to

15

the Magistrate Judge’s jurisdiction and is the only party who has appeared in this

16

action. [See Dkt. No. 2.]

17

//

18

//

19

//

20

//

21

//

22

//

23

//

24

//

25

//

26
27
28

1

Notably, the instant action represents Petitioner’s second challenge to the execution of his
sentence while confined within the Northern District of California. See Stevenson v. Curry, N.D. Cal.
Case No. 3:09-cv-0759-MMC; Stevenson v. Curry, 2009 WL 5218011 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 31, 2009).

2