You are on page 1of 2

(HC)Ford vs. Malfi Doc.

17

Case 1:06-cv-01325-OWW-TAG Document 17 Filed 09/22/2006 Page 1 of 2

8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 RAY FORD,

11 Petitioner, No. CIV S-06-1028 MCE DAD P

12 vs.

13 ANTHONY MALFI, Warden,

14 Respondent. ORDER

15 /

16 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding through counsel, has filed an application for

17 a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has paid the filing fee. In his

18 application, petitioner challenges the decision of the Board of Parole Hearings finding him

19 unsuitable for parole. Petitioner is confined at the Sierra Conservation Center which is located in

20 Tuolumne County. The parole hearing which resulted in the decision now challenged was held at

21 the California Men’s Colony in San Luis Obispo County. Petitioner’s underlying judgment of

22 conviction was entered in the Los Angeles County Superior Court.

23 Through this habeas action petitioner seeks to challenge the execution of his

24 sentence as opposed to his underlying criminal conviction. In determining the proper venue for

25 this action, several factors are to be considered. Venue is proper in a habeas action in either the

26 district of confinement or the district of conviction. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). However, the district

Dockets.Justia.com
Case 1:06-cv-01325-OWW-TAG Document 17 Filed 09/22/2006 Page 2 of 2

1 of confinement is the preferable forum where the action challenges the execution of a sentence.

2 Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989); see also Whitney v. Brown, No.

3 105CV00557 RECTAGHC, 2005 WL 1704322, at *2 (E.D. Cal. July 14, 2005) (transferring case

4 to district where petitioner was incarcerated and where most of petitioner’s records relating to his

5 incarcerations, parole releases, and parole revocations were located). As noted above petitioner

6 is now, and was at the time of the filing of this action, confined at the Sierra Conservation Center

7 which is located in Tuolumne County which in turn is part of the Fresno Division of the United

8 States District Court for the Eastern District of California. See Local Rule 3-120(d).

9 Pursuant to Local Rule 3-120(f), a civil action which has not been commenced in

10 the proper division of a court may, on the court’s own motion, be transferred to the proper

11 division of the court. Therefore, this action will be transferred to the Fresno Division of the

12 court.

13 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

14 1. This action is transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern

15 District of California sitting in Fresno; and

16 2. All future filings shall reference the new Fresno case number assigned and

17 shall be filed at:

18 United States District Court


Eastern District of California
19 2500 Tulare Street
Fresno, CA 93721
20

21 DATED: September 21, 2006.

22

23

24

25 DAD:4
ford1028.109
26

You might also like