Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03347/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03347-0/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

CLIFTON FREEMAN,

Petitioner,

 vs.

D.K. SISCO, Warden,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

C 07-3347 MMC(PR)

ORDER OF TRANSFER

(Docket No. 2)

On March 27, 2007, petitioner, a prisoner at California State Prison, Solano, 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 Prison Hearings to deny

him 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); cf. 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). 

Solano County, where petitioner is confined, is located within the venue of the Eastern

Case 3:07-cv-03347-MMC Document 3 Filed 06/29/07 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

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). 

In light of the transfer, this Court will defer to the Eastern District with respect to

petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis.

The Clerk shall close the file and terminate Docket No. 2 on this Court’s docket. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 29, 2007

 MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-03347-MMC Document 3 Filed 06/29/07 Page 2 of 2