Beltran v. Board of Parole Hearings

Filing 5

ORDER Transferring Case to the Sacramento Division of the United States District Court, Eastern District of California, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 09/14/2010. (Martin, S)

(HC) Beltran v. Board of Parole Hearings

Doc. 5

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 Respondent. / Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with a request to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The federal venue statute requires that a civil action, other than one based on diversity jurisdiction, be brought only in "(1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same state, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of the property that is the subject of the action is situated, or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant may be found, if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought." 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). -1Dockets.Justia.com

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID BELTRAN, Petitioner, vs. BOARD OF PAROLE HEARINGS

1:10-cv-01623-JLT (HC) ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE SACRAMENTO DIVISION OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

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

In a habeas matter, venue is proper in either the district of conviction or the district of confinement. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). Where a petitioner attacks the execution of his sentence, the proper forum in which to review such a claim is the district of confinement. See Dunn v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989)(stating that, in a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 action, "[t]he proper forum to challenge the execution of a sentence is the district where the prisoner is confined.") In this case, petitioner is challenging the denial of parole suitability by the Board of Parole Hearings; therefore, he is challenging the execution of his sentence, not his conviction. Hence, the petition should have been filed in the forum where Petitioner is presently confined. Petitioner is presently confined at Mule Creek State Prison, which is located in Ione, Amador County, California, which lies within the Sacramento Division of this Court. Thus, the petition should have been filed in the Sacramento Division of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. Pursuant to Local Rule 120(f), a civil action which has not been commenced in the proper division of a court may, on the court's own motion, be transferred to the proper division of the court. Therefore, this action will be transferred to the Sacramento Division of this Court. Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. This action is transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California sitting in Sacramento; and, 2. All future filings shall reference the new Sacramento case number assigned and shall be filed at: United States District Court Eastern District of California 501 "I" Street, Suite 4-200 Sacramento, CA 95814 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 14, 2010 -2/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston

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

9j7khi

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-3-