Ngo v. Seibel

Filing 5

ORDER OF TRANSFER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 8/30/2017. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/30/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 KY NGO, 9 Plaintiff, 10 ORDER OF TRANSFER v. 11 United States District Court Northern District of California Case No.17-cv-04362-JSC Re: Dkt. No. 2 K. SEIBEL, 12 Defendant. 13 Petitioner, a California prisoner at Mule Creek State Prison, filed this pro se petition for a 14 15 writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.1 The petition challenges the disciplinary 16 proceedings at Centinela State Prison, where Petitioner was formerly incarcerated, which 17 proceedings resulted in Petitioner’s loss of 90 days of “good time” credits. Petitioner argues that 18 such proceedings violated his right to due process because he received multiple “RVRs” (Rule 19 Violation Reports) based upon a single course of conduct. A petition for a writ of habeas corpus made by a person in custody under the judgment and sentence of a state court of a state which contains two or more federal judicial districts may be filed in either the district of confinement or the district of conviction. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). Each of such districts shall have concurrent jurisdiction to entertain the petition; however, the district court for the district where the petition is filed may transfer the petition to the other district in the furtherance of justice. See id. If the petition is directed to the manner in which a sentence is being executed, e.g., if it involves time credits claims, the district of confinement is the preferable forum.2 See Habeas L.R. 2254-3(b)(2); Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989). As the instant petition challenges the loss of time credits, the district of confinement is the preferable venue for the petition. Mule Creek State Prison is located in Amador County, which lies within the venue of the Eastern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 84. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Petitioner has consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (ECF No. 4.) 2 Petitions challenging a conviction or sentence are heard in the district of conviction. See Dannenberg v. Ingle, 831 F. Supp. 767, 768 (N.D. Cal. 1993); Laue v. Nelson, 279 F. Supp. 265, 266 (N.D. Cal. 1968). 1 Accordingly, in the interest of justice, this case is TRANSFERRED to the United States 2 District Court for the Eastern District of California. In light of this transfer, ruling on Petitioner’s 3 application to proceed in forma pauperis is deferred to the Eastern District. The Clerk shall 4 terminate these motions from this Court’s docket (ECF No. 2) and transfer this matter forthwith. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 30, 2017 7 8 JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY United States Magistrate Judge 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 KY NGO, Case No. 17-cv-04362-JSC Plaintiff, 8 v. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 9 10 K. SEIBEL, Defendant. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 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, 2017, 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. 18 19 20 21 Ky Ngo ID: P-36760 Deuel Vocational Institution P.O. Box 600 D-Wing 215 Low Tracy, CA 95378-0600 22 23 Dated: August 30, 2017 24 25 Susan Y. Soong Clerk, United States District Court 26 27 28 By:________________________ Ada Means, Deputy Clerk to the Honorable JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY 3

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?