Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02426/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02426-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CLAUDE STEELE,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-06-2426 DFL DAD P

vs.

ROBERT AYERS, JR., Warden, et al., 

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has paid the filing fee. In his application,

petitioner seeks review of the decision by California Board of Prison Hearings Panel (formerly,

the Board of Prison Terms) finding petitioner unsuitable for parole. 

The statute that governs the power of federal courts to grant a writ of habeas

corpus contains the following provision concerning the proper forum for federal habeas petitions

filed by state prisoners:

Where an application for a writ of habeas corpus is made by

a person in custody under the judgment and sentence of a State

court of a State which contains two or more Federal judicial

districts, the application may be filed in the district court for the

district wherein such person is in custody or in the district court for

the district within which the State court was held which convicted

and sentenced him and each of such district courts shall have

Case 2:06-cv-02426-DFL-DAD Document 4 Filed 12/01/06 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

2

concurrent jurisdiction to entertain the application. The district

court for the district wherein such an application is filed in the

exercise of its discretion and in furtherance of justice may transfer

the application to the other district court for hearing and

determination.

28 U.S.C. § 2241(d).

Here, petitioner was convicted and sentenced in the Tehama County Superior

Court which is located within the Eastern District of California. However, at the time he filed

this petition petitioner was at San Quentin State Prison which is located in Marin County within

the Northern District of California. Petitioner remains confined at San Quentin State Prison. 

Finally, the parole hearing which resulted in the decision to deny parole that petitioner now

challenges was also held at San Quentin State Prison. 

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

sentence as opposed to his underlying criminal conviction. While venue is proper in a habeas

action in either the district of confinement or the district of conviction under 28 U.S.C. §

2241(d), the district of confinement is the preferable forum where the action challenges the

execution of a sentence. Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989); see also Whitney

v. Brown, No. 105CV00557 RECTAGHC, 2005 WL 1704322, at *2 (E.D. Cal. July 14, 2005)

(transferring case to district where petitioner was incarcerated at the time the petition was filed

and where most of petitioner’s records relating to his incarcerations, parole releases and parole

revocations were located). 

Accordingly, in the furtherance of justice, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this

matter is transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. 

28 U.S.C. § 2241(d).

DATED: November 30, 2006.

DAD:4

stee2426.108

Case 2:06-cv-02426-DFL-DAD Document 4 Filed 12/01/06 Page 2 of 2