Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04435/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04435-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES F. WILLIAMS,

Petitioner,

 vs.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT

COURT FOR THE NORTHERN

DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

C 07-4435 MMC(PR)

ORDER OF TRANSFER

On August 28, 2007, petitioner, a prisoner at North Kern State Prison, and proceeding

pro se, filed the above-titled petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254. He challenges a decision by the California Board of Parole Hearings to revoke his

parole. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, venue for a habeas action is proper in either the district

of confinement or the district of conviction, and the district in which the petition is filed may

transfer the petition to such other district in the furtherance of justice. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2241(d); see, e.g., Laue v. Nelson, 279 F. Supp. 265, 266 (N.D. Cal. 1968). If the petition

is directed to the manner in which a sentence is being executed, such as parole or time credit

claims, the district of confinement is the preferable forum. See Habeas L.R. 2254-3(a);

Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989); see also Dannenberg v. Ingle, 831 F.

Supp. 767, 767 (N.D. Cal. 1993) (holding petition challenging conviction or sentence should

be heard in district of conviction). 

Case 3:07-cv-04435-MMC Document 3 Filed 09/11/07 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

North Kern State Prison, where petitioner is confined, is located in Kern County,

which is located within the venue of the Eastern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 84(d). Under such circumstances, and given the nature of petitioner’s claims, the Eastern

District is the preferable forum.

Accordingly, the above-titled action is hereby TRANSFERRED to the United States

District Court for the Eastern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a); Habeas L.R.

2254-3(b). 

The Clerk shall close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 11, 2007 

 MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-04435-MMC Document 3 Filed 09/11/07 Page 2 of 2