Alfaro v. Hartley
Filing
3
ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE to the United States District Court for the Central District of California signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 6/20/2011. (Jessen, A)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ASAEL A. ALFARO,
12
1:11-cv-00997-SMS (HC)
Petitioner,
13
14
ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA
vs.
JAMES D. HARTLEY,
15
Respondent.
16
/
17
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a habeas corpus action pursuant to 28
18
U.S.C. § 2254, in which he challenges a decision reached by the Board of Prison Terms regarding his
19
suitability for parole. Petitioner has submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis for this
20
action.
21
The federal venue statute requires that a civil action, other than one based on diversity
22
jurisdiction, be brought only in “(1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants
23
reside in the same state, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions
24
giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of the property that is the subject of the action
25
is situated, or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant may be found, if there is no district in
26
which the action may otherwise be brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
27
28
In a habeas matter, venue is proper in either the district of conviction or the district of
confinement. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). Where a petitioner attacks the execution of his sentence, the
-1-
1
proper forum in which to review such a claim is the district of confinement. See Dunn v. Henman,
2
875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989) (stating, in a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 action, that "[t]he proper forum to
3
challenge the execution of a sentence is the district where the prisoner is confined.").
4
In this case, petitioner was sentenced in Los Angeles County Superior Court, which is located
5
within the Eastern District of California. He is currently incarcerated at Chuckawalla Valley State
6
Prison, in Riverside County, which lies within the Central District of California. Because the instant
7
petition is premised on events relating to Petitioner's parole proceedings, the court construes it as a
8
challenge to the execution of petitioner's sentence, as opposed to an attack on the conviction itself.
9
Thus, this matter should be addressed in the forum where petitioner is confined. Therefore, the
10
petition should have been filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of
11
California. In the interest of justice, a federal court may transfer a case filed in the wrong district to
12
the correct district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); Starnes v. McGuire, 512 F.2d 918, 932 (D.C. Cir.
13
1974).
14
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the United States
15
District Court for the Central District of California.
16
IT IS SO ORDERED.
17
Dated:
23ehd0
June 20, 2011
/s/ Sandra M. Snyder
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-
]]>
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?
