Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00459/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00459-2/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

DAVID WEIDERT,

Petitioner, No. CIV S- 05-2398 DFL PAN P

vs.

 JAMES YATES, 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, together with a request to proceed in forma

pauperis. Petitioner challenges a 2005 decision of the California Board of Prison Terms to deny

petitioner parole. Petitioner is incarcerated at Pleasant Valley State Prison in Coalinga,

California.

The record reflects that petitioner suffered his underlying criminal conviction in

the Fresno County Superior Court. While the Fresno Division of this Court and this division of

the court both have jurisdiction, see Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court, 410 U.S. 484 (1973),

the district of confinement is the “proper forum” for this challenge to a denial of parole. See

Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989). As noted above, petitioner is confined at a

prison facility in Coalinga, California, which is in Fresno County. Fresno County is in an area

Case 1:06-cv-00459-LJO -SMS Document 13 Filed 04/21/06 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

covered by the Fresno Division of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of

California. See Local Rule 3-120(d). 

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

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

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

court. This court will not rule on respondents’ motion to dismiss.

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. This court has not ruled on respondents’ January 30, 2006 motion to dismiss; 

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

District of California sitting in Fresno; and

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

shall be filed at:

United States District Court

Eastern District of California

2500 Tulare Street

Fresno, CA 93721

 DATED: April 19, 2006.

\004

\weid2398.108

Case 1:06-cv-00459-LJO -SMS Document 13 Filed 04/21/06 Page 2 of 2