Williams v. Yates

Filing 6

ORDER OF TRANSFER. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 10/31/08. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/31/2008) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/3/2008: # 2 Docket Sheet) (far, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 v. JAMES A. YATES, Warden, Respondent. / ROLAND WILLIAMS, Petitioner, No. C 08-4449 PJH (PR) ORDER OF TRANSFER UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA United 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 This case was opened when petitioner filed a habeas petition on a preprinted form. His claims, however, are about the conditions of his confinement medical care rather than the fact of his confinement or the length of it. It may be, therefore, that his claims are not properly the proper subject of a habeas action. See Moran v. Sondalle, 218 F.3d 647, 650-52 (7th Cir. 2000); Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991) (civil rights action is proper method of challenging conditions of confinement); Crawford v. Bell, 599 F.2d 890, 891-92 & n.1 (9th Cir. 1979) (affirming dismissal of habeas petition on basis that challenges to terms and conditions of confinement must be brought in civil rights complaint). If the case is treated as a habeas case, his claims involve the execution of his sentence. Such claims are preferably heard in the district of confinement, Habeas L.R. 2254-3(a); Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989), and petitioner is confined at a prison in the Eastern District of California. If it is treated as a civil rights case, the proper venue also would be the Eastern District, where the putative defendants would be found and where the claims arose. See 28 U.S.C. 1391(b). The court therefore need not resolve the question whether this should be treated as a habeas case or a civil rights case, because either way the preferable venue is not this court, but rather the Eastern District. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 This case therefore is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. 1404(a).. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 31, 2008. PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 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\PJH\CR.08\WILLIAMS4449.trn.wpd

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?