Piltz v. California Parole Board Commissioners et al

Filing 4

ORDER signed by Judge Dale A. Drozd on 04/16/07: CASE TRANSFERRED to the Northern District of CA. Certified copy of transfer order, and docket sheet sent. CASE CLOSED. (Kirkpatrick, S)

(HC) Piltz v. California Parole Board Commissioners et al

Doc. 4

Case 2:07-cv-00613-FCD-DAD

Document 4

Filed 04/16/2007

Page 1 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Respondents. 15 / 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has paid the filing fee. Petitioner challenges the denial of parole by the Board of Prison Terms in 2004. The parole hearing in question was held at the Correctional Training Facility in Soledad, California where petitioner was confined at the time this action was filed and where he is currently incarcerated. Through this habeas action petitioner seeks to challenge the execution of his sentence as opposed to his underlying criminal conviction. While venue is proper in a habeas action in either the district of confinement or the district of conviction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d), the district of confinement is the preferable forum where the action challenges the execution of a sentence. Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989); see also Jamison 1
Dockets.Justia.com

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA LESLIE PILTZ, Petitioner, vs. CALIFORNIA PAROLE BOARD COMMISSIONERS, et al., ORDER No. CIV S-07-0613 FCD DAD P

Case 2:07-cv-00613-FCD-DAD

Document 4

Filed 04/16/2007

Page 2 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

v. Ayres, No. CIV S-07-0303 GEB EFB P, 2007 WL 926824 (E.D. Cal. March 26, 2007) (transferring case to district where petitioner was incarcerated at the time of filing of the habeas petition challenging a denial of parole suitability). Accordingly, in the furtherance of justice, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d).1 DATED: April 16, 2007.

DAD:4 pilt0613.108

The court also notes that petitioner has improperly named the California Parole Board Commissioners as respondents in this action. "A petitioner for habeas corpus relief must name the state officer having custody of him or her as the respondent to the petition." Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing Rule 2(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254). Petitioner is advised that the proper respondent is the warden of the prison where he is confined. 2

1