Sanders v. Davis

Filing 15

ORDER of INTRADISTRICT TRANSFER from Sacramento (2:14-cv-2448 GGH) to Fresno (1:14-cv-1935 JLT) signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 12/3/14. (Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

EDWARD VINCENT SANDERS, aka
COTTRELL L. BROADNAX,
Petitioner,

13

ORDER
v.

14
15

No. 2:14-cv-2448 GGH P

RON DAVIS,
Respondents.

16
17

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

18
19

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has paid the filing fee.
Petitioner challenges the January 16, 2013 decision of the California Board of Parole

20
21

Hearings to deny him parole. Consequently, the instant petition is one for review of the execution

22

of a sentence imposed by a California state court. See Rosas v. Nielsen, 428 F.3d 1229, 1232 (9th

23

Cir. 2005) (denial of parole is “a decision ‘regarding the execution’ of” a prison sentence.) As a

24

general rule, “[t]he proper forum to challenge the execution of a sentence is the district where the

25

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

26

incarcerated at Valley State Prison in Chowchilla, County of Madera, which lies in the Fresno

27

Division of the Eastern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(a).

28

/////
1

1

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

2

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

3

prisoners. Petitioner’s conviction was in the Northern District of California; his parole board

4

denial was issued from Mule Creek State Prison, where he was previously incarcerated; he is

5

currently confined in the Fresno Division of this district. As the Northern District found in its

6

transfer order, the proper forum for the instant challenge is in the district of confinement, which is

7

the Eastern District of California. The proper division of the Eastern District is the Fresno

8

Division, where petitioner is confined.

9

In regard to intra-district transfers, pursuant to Local Rule 120(f), a civil action which has

10

not been commenced in the proper division of a court may, on the court’s own motion, be

11

transferred to the proper division of the court. Therefore, this action will be transferred to the

12

Fresno Division of the court.

13

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

14

1. This action is transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of

15
16
17

California sitting in Fresno; and
2. All future filings shall reference the new Fresno case number assigned and shall be
filed at:
United States District Court
Eastern District of California
2500 Tulare Street
Fresno, CA 93721

18
19
20

Dated: December 3, 2014

21

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

22

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24

GGH:076/sand2448.108bph-109

25
26
27
28
2