Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01271/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01271-1/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JACK DEWAYNE BRITT,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-05-1271 MCE PAN P

vs.

A. P. KANE, 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 2004 decision of the California Board of Prison Terms to deny

petitioner parole. Petitioner is incarcerated at the Correctional Training Facility in Soledad,

California, where the BPT hearing at issue was conducted. 

The record reflects that petitioner reflects that petitioner suffered his underlying

criminal conviction in the Stanislaus County Superior Court. While the Fresno Division of this

Court and the United States District Court in the district where petitioner is confined therefore

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 (9 Cir. 1989). As noted above, petitioner is confined at a prison th

Case 2:05-cv-01271-MCE -PAN Document 12 Filed 03/17/06 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

facility in Soledad, California, which is in Monterey County. Monterey County is in an area

covered by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. 

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

1. This court has not ruled on respondents’ August 31, 2005 motion to dismiss;

and

2. This matter is transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern

District of California. 

DATED: March 16, 2006. 

12

brit1271.108

Case 2:05-cv-01271-MCE -PAN Document 12 Filed 03/17/06 Page 2 of 2