Chavez v. Board of Prison Terms

Filing 10

ORDER of INTRADISTRICT TRANSFER from Sacramento (2:14-cv-2193 CMK HC) to Fresno (1:15-cv-0773 JLT HC) signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 5/21/2015. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JAMES D. CHAVEZ,

12
13
14

Petitioner,
vs.

ORDER

WARDEN,

15

Respondent.

16

/

17
18

No. 2:14-CV-2193-CMK-P

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
Petitioner challenges the denial of parole.1 Consequently, the instant petition is

19
20

one for review of the execution of a sentence imposed by a California state court. See Rosas v.

21

Nielsen, 428 F.3d 1229, 1232 (9th Cir. 2005) (denial of parole is “a decision ‘regarding the

22

execution’ of” a prison sentence). As a general rule, “[t]he proper forum to challenge the

23

execution of a sentence is the district where the prisoner is confined.” Dunne v. Henman, 875

24

F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989). Petitioner is currently incarcerated at Kern Valley State Prison,

25
1

26

It appears that petitioner may also be attempting to assert a claim challenging his
underlying conviction.
1

1

located in Kern County, which is part of the Fresno division of this court. See Local Rule

2

120(b). Because the Sacramento division is not the proper division, this action will be

3

transferred to the Fresno division.2

4
5

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is transferred to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of California sitting in Fresno.

6
7

DATED: May 21, 2015

8

______________________________________
CRAIG M. KELLISON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

2

To the extent petitioner is also asserting a claim challenging his conviction,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 2241(d), courts in both the district of conviction and the district of
confinement have concurrent jurisdiction over applications for habeas corpus filed by state
prisoners. See Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court, 410 U.S. 484 (1973). Thus, the Fresno
division of this court is also a proper venue for any claims challenging petitioner’s conviction.
2