Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-01103/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-01103-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 28:2255 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 Transfer

G:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\HC.07\Esteban01103_transfer(2241).wpd

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JERRY TAVALE ESTEBAN,

Petitioner,

 vs.

TERESER A. BANKS, Warden, 

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-01103 JW (PR)

ORDER OF TRANSFER

Petitioner is a federal prisoner who is incarcerated at the Federal Correctional

Institution in Terminal Island, California (“FCI-TI”). His criminal proceedings took

place in this district before the Honorable James Ware. Petitioner has filed this

petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging the

computation of his time credits by the Bureau of Prisons. 

Review of the execution of a federal sentence is properly brought as a petition

under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Mills v. Taylor, 967 F.2d 1397, 1400 (9th Cir. 1992)

(presentence time credit claim); United States v. Giddings, 740 F.2d 770, 772 (9th

Cir. 1984) (same). Section 2241 allows “the Supreme Court, any justice thereof, the

district courts and any circuit judge” to grant writs of habeas corpus “within their

Case 5:07-cv-01103-JW Document 8 Filed 02/29/08 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 Transfer

G:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\HC.07\Esteban01103_transfer(2241).wpd 2

respective jurisdictions.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a). The Supreme Court has interpreted

this to mean that the court issuing the writ must have jurisdiction over the custodian. 

Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 124 S. Ct. 2711, 2721-22 (2004). “[F]or core habeas petitions

challenging present physical confinement, jurisdiction lies in only one district: the

district of confinement.” Id. at 2722. 

Although this court may have jurisdiction to hear a petition, see Braden, 410

U.S. at 494-95, Braden also makes clear that “venue considerations may, and

frequently will, argue in favor of adjudication of the habeas claim in the jurisdiction

where the habeas petitioner is confined.” Chatman-Bey v. Thornburgh, 864 F.2d

804, at 813 (D.C. Cir. 1988); see also McCoy v. United States Bd. of Parole, 537

F.2d 962, 966 (8th Cir. 1976) (“Once the custodian of the petitioner is properly

served, the question is no longer jurisdictional, but one of the most convenient forum

for litigation.”); 1 J. S. Liebman, supra, § 10.2(d) at 141 (“Personal jurisdiction is

only the first ‘proper forum’ hurdle the petitioner must clear.”). Transfer of a

petition to another district court may therefore be in order on grounds of

convenience. See Braden, 410 U.S. at 499 n.15; McCoy, 537 F.2d at 966; United

States ex rel. Meadows v. New York, 426 F.2d 1176, 1183 n.9 (2d Cir. 1970), cert.

denied, 401 U.S. 941 (1971). 

Federal courts generally take the position that the district of confinement “is

normally the forum most convenient to the parties,” McCoy, 537 F.2d at 966, and

therefore exercise discretion in transferring petitions to the district of confinement

“in the interests of justice” pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). See id.; see also Dunne v.

Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249-50 (9th Cir. 1989) (suggesting that even where district

court has personal jurisdiction over custodian, preferred forum is district where

petitioner is confined). This practice is supported by the fact that a prisoner’s

records follow him to the place of incarceration and in that it promotes uniformity in

the filing of § 2241 petitions; in contrast, a system that allows a prisoner in

Case 5:07-cv-01103-JW Document 8 Filed 02/29/08 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 Transfer

G:\PRO-SE\SJ.JW\HC.07\Esteban01103_transfer(2241).wpd 3

California to challenge the execution of his federal sentence in any of the four

district courts within the state, since they all have personal jurisdiction over any

California custodian, works against this. A transfer to the district of confinement on

convenient forum grounds is therefore preferable as long as no undue delay is

created. See Chatman-Bey, 864 F.2d at 814 (“Delay is undesirable in all aspects of

our justice system, but it is especially to be avoided in the sensitive context of

habeas corpus.”)

Here, petitioner was convicted in the Northern District of California but is

confined at FCI-TI, which is located in Los Angeles County, California. The

judicial district in which Los Angeles County is located is the Western Division of

the Central District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(c). Therefore, pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2241(b), the Clerk of Court is directed to TRANSFER this action forthwith

to the United States District Court for the Western Division of the Central District of

California. 

The clerk shall transfer this matter and close the file.

DATED: 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge 

February 28, 2008

Case 5:07-cv-01103-JW Document 8 Filed 02/29/08 Page 3 of 3