Bayramoglu v. Ochoa

Filing 9

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE. Signed by Judge William Alsup on 4/29/11. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(dt, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/29/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
FIKRI BAYRAMOGLU,

No. C 11-1653 WHA (PR)

Petitioner,

ORDER OF TRANSFER

11
v.
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
J. TIM OCHOA, Warden,
13
Respondent.
/

14

(Docket No. 8)

15
Petitioner, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this petition for a writ of habeas
16
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254 challenging the denial of parole. Petitioner was convicted in
17
Marin County, which is in the venue of this district, but he is incarcerated at Chuckawalla
18
Valley State Prison, which is in the venue of the Central District of California. See 28 U.S.C. §
19
84.
20
The petition was filed in the Eastern District of California, which transferred it to this
21
court because it did not have “jurisdiction” over the case. Jurisdiction for habeas cases
22
involving state prisoners is proper in either the district of confinement or the district of convic23
tion. 28 U.S.C. 2241(d). The district court for the district where the petition is filed may,
24
however, transfer the petition to the other district in the furtherance of justice. Ibid. Venue for
25
petitions challenging a conviction or sentence is preferable in the district of conviction. See
26
Dannenberg v. Ingle, 831 F. Supp. 767, 768 (N.D. Cal. 1993). If the petition is directed to the
27
manner in which a sentence is being executed, for example if it involves parole or time credits
28
claims, the district of confinement is the preferable forum. See Habeas L.R. 2254-3(b)(1);

1

Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989). Because petitioner’s claim is about the

2

denial of parole, it is a challenge to the execution of his sentence, rather than the validity of it,

3

and the district of confinement is therefore the preferable forum, not the district of conviction.

4

Therefore, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1404(a) and Habeas L.R. 2254-3(b), and in the

5

interests of justice, this petition is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the

6

Central District of California. Ruling on petitioner’s motion for leave to proceed in forma

7

pauperis is deferred to the Central District following the transfer of this case. The clerk shall

8

terminate docket number 8 from this court’s docket.

9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

Dated: April

29

, 2011.

11

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

G:\PRO-SE\WHA\HC.11\BAYRAMOGLU1653.TRN.wpd

25
26
27
28
2