Thompson v. Dickinson

Filing 2

ORDER OF TRANSFER. Signed by Judge JEFFREY S. WHITE on 8/30/11. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/30/2011)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 KEITH A. THOMPSON, Petitioner, 9 10 vs. 11 K. DICKINSON, Warden, 12 Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. C 11-3793 JSW (PR) ORDER OF TRANSFER 13 14 Petitioner is a state prisoner currently incarcerated at the California Medical 15 Facility in Vacaville. He has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 16 U.S.C. § 2254 arguing that the California Board of Parole Hearings has violated his 17 constitutional rights by denying him parole. He is in custody based upon a conviction 18 obtained in Monterey County Superior Court in 1991. Monterey County is located 19 within the venue of this court, but Vacaville, where Petitioner is incarcerated, is located 20 within the venue of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. 21 See 28 U.S.C. § 84. 22 A petition for a writ of habeas corpus made by a person in custody under the 23 judgment and sentence of a state court of a state which contains two or more federal 24 judicial districts may be filed in either the district of confinement or the district of 25 conviction. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). Each of such districts shall have concurrent 26 jurisdiction to entertain the petition; however, the district court for the district where the 27 petition is filed may transfer the petition to the other district in the furtherance of justice. 28 See id. However, if the petition is directed to the manner in which a sentence is being executed, e.g., if it involves parole or time credits claims, the district of confinement is 1 the preferable forum. See Habeas L.R. 2254-3(a); Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 2 (9th Cir. 1989). 3 Petitioner challenges the denial of parole in this case, and thus it is directed to the 4 manner in which his sentence is being executed, not to the validity of his conviction. 5 Consequently, the preferable venue for this case is the district of confinement, in this 6 case the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. See Habeas 7 L.R. 2254-3(a); Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989). 8 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED in the interest of justice, and pursuant to 28 9 U.S.C. § 1406(a), that this action be TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court 10 for the Eastern District of California. 11 The Clerk of the Court shall transfer this matter forthwith. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 14 DATED:August 30, 2011 JEFFREY S. WHITE United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 6 KEITH A. THOMPSON, Plaintiff, 7 8 9 10 Case Number: CV11-03793 JSW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE v. K. DICKINSON et al, Defendant. / 11 12 13 14 15 I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. That on August 30, 2011, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Keith A. Thompson California Medical Facility E98106 P.O. Box 2000 Vacaville, CA 95696 Dated: August 30, 2011 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: Jennifer Ottolini, Deputy Clerk

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?