Brownlee v. McDonald
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 4/2/2012, CASE TRANSFERRRED to SACRAMENTO Division. New Case Number 2:12-cv-00847-GGH (HC). (Marrujo, C)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
1:12-cv-00407 GSA HC
ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO
THE SACRAMENTO DIVISION OF THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a habeas corpus action pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254, in which he challenges a decision reached by the Board of Prison Terms regarding his
suitability for parole.
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).
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, in a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 action, that "[t]he proper forum to
challenge the execution of a sentence is the district where the prisoner is confined.").
In this case, petitioner was sentenced in Fresno County Superior Court, which is located
within the Eastern District of California. He is currently incarcerated at High Desert State Prison in
Lassen County, which lies within the Sacramento Division of the Eastern District of California.
Because the instant petition is premised on events relating to Petitioner's parole proceedings, the
court construes it as a challenge to the execution of petitioner's sentence, as opposed to an attack on
the conviction itself. Thus, this matter should be addressed in the forum where petitioner is
confined. Therefore, the petition should have been filed in the Sacramento Division of the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of California. In the interest of justice, a federal court
may transfer a case filed in the wrong district to the correct district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a);
Starnes v. McGuire, 512 F.2d 918, 932 (D.C. Cir. 1974).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the Sacramento
Division of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
April 2, 2012
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?