Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01083/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01083-1/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANNY TROXELL, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

ACTING WARDEN RICHARD )

KIRKLAND, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:05-cv-01083-OWW-TAG HC

ORDER OF TRANSFER

TO THE NORTHERN DISTRICT

OF CALIFORNIA

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

The instant petition was filed on August 23, 2005. (Doc. 1). Petitioner is presently

confined at Pelican Bay State Prison, Crescent City, California. In his petition, Petitioner alleges

that the Bureau of Prison Terms (“BPT”) denied him parole in violation of his constitutional

rights. (Doc. 1). Petitioner thus does not appear to challenge his conviction from the Fresno

County Superior Court; rather, he clearly indicates that he is challenging the BPT’s 2001

decision to postpone any grant of parole. (Doc. 1-2, p. 39). Petitioner also alleges that his

incarceration in the Secure Housing Unit (“SHU”) has precluded him from participating in

programs that would facilitate a grant of parole by the BPT. (Doc. 1-3, p. 4). Thus, Petitioner is

challenging not the fact of his conviction in Fresno County Superior Court but the execution of

his sentence at Pelican Bay State Prison. 

As a general matter, venue is preferable in the district of confinement when the petition

seeks review of the execution of a sentence. Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir.

Case 1:05-cv-01083-OWW -TAG Document 7 Filed 03/15/07 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

1989); cf. Laue v. Nelson, 279 F.Supp. 265, 266 (N.D. Cal. 1968)(district of conviction

preferable forum to review conviction). Because Petitioner is challenging the execution of his

sentence, venue is proper in the district of his confinement. In this case, the Pelican Bay State

Prison, Crescent City, California, is located within the United States District Court for the

Northern District of California. In the interest of justice, a federal court may transfer a case filed

in the wrong district to the correct district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); Starnes v. McGuire, 512

F.2d 918, 932 (D.C. Cir. 1974).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the United

States District Court for the Northern District of California.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 14, 2007 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:05-cv-01083-OWW -TAG Document 7 Filed 03/15/07 Page 2 of 2