Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05998/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05998-0/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALBERT ALVIN WILLIAMS,

Petitioner,

 vs.

D.K. SISTO, Warden,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

C 07-5998 MMC(PR)

ORDER OF TRANSFER

On November 28, 2007, petitioner, a prisoner at California State Prison-Solano, and

proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254. He challenges the Board of Parole Hearing’s decision denying him parole in

2006. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, venue for a habeas action is proper in either the district

of confinement or the district of conviction, and the district in which the petition is filed may

transfer the petition to such other district in the furtherance of justice. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2241(d); see, e.g., Laue v. Nelson, 279 F. Supp. 265, 266 (N.D. Cal. 1968). If the petition

is directed to the manner in which a sentence is being executed, such as parole or time credit

claims, the district of confinement is the preferable forum. See Habeas L.R. 2254-3(a);

Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989); see also Dannenberg v. Ingle, 831 F.

Supp. 767, 767 (N.D. Cal. 1993) (holding petition challenging conviction or sentence should

be heard in district of conviction). 

California State Prison-Solano, where petitioner is confined, is located in Vacaville, in

Case 3:07-cv-05998-MMC Document 3 Filed 12/11/07 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

27

28

2

Solano County, which is located within the venue of the Eastern District of California. See

28 U.S.C. § 84(b). Under such circumstances, and given the nature of petitioner’s claims, the

Eastern District is the preferable forum.

Accordingly, the above-titled action is hereby TRANSFERRED to the United States

District Court for the Eastern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a); Habeas L.R.

2254-3(b). 

The Clerk shall close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 11, 2007

 MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-05998-MMC Document 3 Filed 12/11/07 Page 2 of 2