Ari v. Lattimore

Filing 5

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE. Signed by Judge William Alsup on 3/31/10. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(dt, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/31/2010)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

ROXANNE ARI, Petitioner, vs. MARY LATTIMORE, Respondent. /

No. C 10-0894 WHA (PR) ORDER OF TRANSFER

(Docket Nos. 2 & 4)

This is a habeas case brought pro se by a state prisoner to challenge denial of parole. Petitioner was convicted in Contra Costa County Superior Court, which is in this district, and she is incarcerated at California Central Women's Facility in Chowchilla, California, which is in the Eastern District. Because petitioner's claim is about the denial of parole, it is a challenge to the execution of his sentence, rather than the validity of it. Venue for habeas cases involving state prisoners is proper in either the district of confinement or the district of conviction, 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d); however, the district of confinement is the preferable forum to review the execution of a sentence. Habeas L.R. 2254-3(a); Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) and Habeas L.R. 2254-3(b), and in the interests of justice, this petition is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Eastern

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

District of California. In light of this transfer, ruling on the application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the motion for appointment of counsel is deferred to the Eastern District, and the clerk shall terminate the motions (docket numbers 2 & 4) from this court's docket. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March

31

, 2010.

WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2
G:\PRO-SE\W HA\HC.10\ARI0894.TRN.wpd