Alfred L. Brooks v. D. Borders

Filing 3

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 12/20/2017 ORDERING this matter is TRANSFERRED to the USDC for the Central District of California. CASE CLOSED. (Yin, K) [Transferred from California Eastern on 12/21/2017.]

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ALFRED BROOKS,

12

Petitioner,

13
14

No. 2:17-cv-2628 KJN P

v.

ORDER

D. BORDERS, et al.,

15

Respondents.

16
17

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas

18

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has not paid the filing fee or filed an application

19

to proceed in forma pauperis.

20

Petitioner is presently incarcerated at California Institution for Men in San Bernardino

21

County. He is serving a sentence for a conviction rendered by the El Dorado County Superior

22

Court.

23

Petitioner challenges the 2016 decision of the California Board of Parole Hearings to deny

24

him parole. (ECF No. 1 at 149.) Consequently, the instant petition is one for review of the

25

execution of a sentence imposed by a California state court. See Rosas v. Nielsen, 428 F.3d

26

1229, 1232 (9th Cir. 2005) (denial of parole is “a decision ‘regarding the execution’ of” a prison

27

sentence.) As a general rule, “[t]he proper forum to challenge the execution of a sentence is the

28

district where the prisoner is confined.” Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989).
1

1

Petitioner is incarcerated at California Institution for Men, Chino, California, which lies in the

2

Central District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(a).

3

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 2241(d), courts in both the district of conviction and the district of

4

confinement have concurrent jurisdiction over applications for habeas corpus filed by state

5

prisoners. While petitioner was convicted in this district, for the reasons set forth supra, the

6

proper forum for the instant challenge is in the district of confinement. In the interest of justice,

7

this court may transfer this action “to any other district where it might have been brought.” 28

8

U.S.C. § 1404(a). Therefore, in the interest of justice, this action will be transferred to the United

9

States District Court for the Central District of California.

10

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is transferred to

11

the United States District Court for the Central District of California. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d); 28

12

U.S.C. § 1406(a).

13

Dated: December 20, 2017

14
15
/broo2628.108.bph

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2