Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-03317/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-03317-1/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

Order of Dismissal

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.06\Boyd317dis 1

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES BOYD,

Petitioner,

 vs.

JAMES LARGE, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-3317 JF (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Petitioner, a prisoner currently incarcerated at Red Onion State Prison in 

Pound, Virginia, filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254. On June 19, 2006, the Court dismissed the instant petition with leave to amend

because Petitioner failed to allege the underlying conviction or sentence that he was

challenging and whether he exhausted his claims prior to filing the petition. The Court

directed Petitioner to file an amended petition within thirty days and to include the

following: the underlying conviction that he is challenging, the location of the conviction,

and whether he has exhausted his claims in state court prior to filing the petition. 

On June 26, 2006, Petitioner filed an amended petition. However, the amended

petition suffers from the same deficiencies: petitioner fails to allege: (1) an underlying

**Original filed 12/5/06**

Case 5:06-cv-03317-JF Document 6 Filed 12/05/06 Page 1 of 3
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

 The Court notes that Petitioner is in a Virginia state prison and that the petition does not

specify where his conviction occurred. Habeas petitions challenging a conviction are preferably

heard in the district of conviction. See Habeas L.R. 2254-3(a); Laue v. Nelson, 279 F. Supp.

265, 266 (N.D. Cal. 1968); cf. Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989) (district of

confinement best forum to review execution of sentence).

Order of Dismissal

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.06\Boyd317dis 2

conviction or sentence, (2) any substantive claims challenging the legality or validity of

his sentence, and (3) whether he has exhausted his claims prior to filing the petition. 

Accordingly, the instant petition is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to allege a

cognizable claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.1

 Petitioner’s declaration in support of his

request to proceed in forma pauperis (docket no. 5) is DENIED as moot. No filing fee is

due. The Clerk shall terminate any pending motions and close the file. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

12/4/06

Case 5:06-cv-03317-JF Document 6 Filed 12/05/06 Page 2 of 3
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

Order of Dismissal

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\hc.06\Boyd317dis 3

A copy of this order was mailed to the following:

James Boyd

226451

Red Onion State Prison

P.O. Box 1900

Pound, VA 24279

Case 5:06-cv-03317-JF Document 6 Filed 12/05/06 Page 3 of 3