Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02324/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02324-1/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

This matter proceeds only to the extent that petitioner challenges the 2006 Board decision 1

denying him parole. To the extent petitioner seeks to assert as a ground for his challenge that his

“contractual plea agreement” is being violated, however, he is challenging his underlying conviction

and must proceed on such a claim by way of a petition within the jurisdiction of his conviction in

San Diego County Superior Court, the Southern District of California. While both this Court and

the United States District Court in the district where petitioner was convicted have jurisdiction, see

Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court, 410 U.S. 484 (1973), any and all witnesses and evidence

necessary for the resolution of petitioner’s application are more readily available in San Diego

County. Id. at 499 n.15; 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). Moreover, petitioner cannot conflate a challenge to

more than one judgment in one petition. See Rule 2(e) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VICTOR AVALOS, 

Petitioner, No. CIV S-07-2324 LKK GGH P

vs.

D.K. SISTO, 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, challenging his 2006 parole denial decision from

the Board of Parole Hearings. Petitioner has paid the filing fee. 1

Since petitioner may be entitled to the requested relief if the claimed violation of

Case 2:07-cv-02324-TJH Document 4 Filed 12/21/07 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

2

constitutional rights is proved, respondents will be directed to file a response to petitioner’s

application. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Respondents are directed to file a response to petitioner’s application within

thirty days from the date of this order. See Rule 4, Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases. An answer

shall be accompanied by any and all transcripts or other documents relevant to the determination

of the issues presented in the application. See Rule 5, Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases;

2. Petitioner’s reply, if any, shall be filed and served within thirty days of service

of an answer;

3. If the response to petitioner’s application is a motion, petitioner’s opposition or

statement of non-opposition shall be filed and served within thirty days of service of the motion,

and respondents’ reply, if any, shall be filed within fifteen days thereafter; and

4. The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this order together with a copy of

petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on Michael

Patrick Farrell, Senior Assistant Attorney General.

DATED: 12/21/07 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009/bb

aval2324.100f

 

Case 2:07-cv-02324-TJH Document 4 Filed 12/21/07 Page 2 of 2