Stacy v. Gastelo

Filing 4

ORDER OF TRANSFER. Signed by Judge Donna M. Ryu on 7/20/17. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/20/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

DANIEL STACY,
Petitioner,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Case No. 17-cv-03925-DMR (PR)
ORDER OF TRANSFER

v.
J. GASTELO, Warden,
Respondent.
Petitioner, a state prisoner who is incarcerated at the California Men’s Colony (“CMC”),

13

has filed this pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging as a violation of his

14

constitutional rights a 2016 denial of parole by the California Board of Parole Hearings. Dkt. 1.

15

On July 12, 2017, Petitioner consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction. Dkt. 2.

16

Also on July 12, 2017, the Clerk of the Court sent a notice directing Petitioner to either pay

17

the filing fee or file a completed prisoner’s in forma pauperis application form. Dkt. 3. The Clerk

18

sent Petitioner a blank IFP application form, and informed him that he must return the completed

19

form along with the supporting documents within twenty-eight days or his action would be

20

dismissed. To date, Petitioner has not submitted a completed in forma pauperis application form.

21

A petition for a writ of habeas corpus made by a person in custody under the judgment and

22

sentence of a state court of a State which contains two or more federal judicial districts may be

23

filed in either the district of confinement or the district of conviction. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d).

24

The district court where the petition is filed, however, may transfer the petition to the other district

25

in the furtherance of justice. See id. Federal courts in California traditionally have chosen to hear

26

petitions challenging a conviction or sentence in the district of conviction. See Dannenberg v.

27

Ingle, 831 F. Supp. 767, 767 (N.D. Cal. 1993); Laue v. Nelson, 279 F. Supp. 265, 266 (N.D. Cal.

28

1968). If the petition is directed to the manner in which a sentence is being executed, e.g., if it

1

involves parole or time credits claims, the district of confinement is the preferable forum. See

2

Habeas L.R. 2254-3(a); Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989).

3

Here, Petitioner does not challenge his conviction but rather the decision denying him

4

parole. CMC, the place of Petitioner’s confinement, is in San Luis Obispo County, which is

5

located in the Western Division of the Central District of California—the preferable forum for this

6

action. See id. Therefore, the Western Division of the United States District Court for the Central

7

District of California has jurisdiction over this matter.

8

Accordingly, this case is TRANSFERRED to the Western Division of the United States

9

District Court for the Central District of California.1 See 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The Clerk shall

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

transfer the entire file to the Central District of California.
If Petitioner wishes to further pursue this action, he must complete the in forma pauperis

12

application required by the Western Division of the United States District Court for the Central

13

District of California and mail it to that district.

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 20, 2017

16
17
DONNA M. RYU
United States Magistrate Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1

28

Venue transfer is a non-dispositive matter and, thus, it falls within the scope of the
jurisdiction of the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).
2