Chestang v. Swarthough

Filing 4

ORDER OF TRANSFER (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 1/31/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 8 EDDIE LEE CHESTANG, Petitioner, 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 No. C 12-459 (pr) ORDER OF TRANSFER v. SWARTHOUGH, warden, Respondent. / 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Petitioner, who was convicted in Alameda County Superior Court and now is incarcerated at the California State Prison - Solano, has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in which he alleges that the minimum eligible parole date and/or maximum eligible parole date set by the Board of Prison Terms are improper. The petition appears to challenge the execution of his sentence. The prison at which petitioner is incarcerated is in Solano County, within the venue of the Eastern District of California. Venue is proper in a habeas action 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. See Habeas L.R. 2254-3(a); Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989). Because petitioner is now confined in the Eastern District of California and challenging the execution of his sentence, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) and Habeas L.R. 2254-3(b), and in the interests of justice, this action is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. The clerk shall transfer this matter forthwith. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: January 31, 2012 SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge

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?