Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04521/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04521-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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

G:\PRO-SE\MJJ\HC.07\arther2.trn.wpd

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LATRAYL D. ARTHER,

Petitioner,

 vs.

CLAUDE E. FINN,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

C 07-4521 MJJ (PR)

ORDER OF TRANSFER

(Docket No. 2)

Petitioner, a California prisoner incarcerated at the Deuel Vocational Institute (“DVI”)

in Tracy, California, has filed this pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the

denial of his suitability for parole by the California Board of Prison Terms. 

A petition for a writ of habeas corpus made by a person in custody under the judgment

and sentence of a state court of a state which contains two or more federal judicial districts

may be filed in either the district of confinement or the district of conviction. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241(d). Each of such districts shall have concurrent jurisdiction to entertain the petition;

however, the district court for the district where the petition is filed may transfer the petition

to the other district in the furtherance of justice. See id. Federal courts in California traditionally have chosen to hear petitions challenging a conviction or sentence in the district of

conviction. See Dannenberg v. Ingle, 831 F. Supp. 767, 767 (N.D. Cal. 1993); Laue v.

Nelson, 279 F. Supp. 265, 266 (N.D. Cal. 1968). If the petition is directed to the manner in

Case 3:07-cv-04521-MJJ Document 5 Filed 10/03/07 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

G:\PRO-SE\MJJ\HC.07\arther2.trn.wpd 2

which a sentence is being executed, e.g., if it involves parole or time credits 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). In this case, the petition challenges the denial of

parole, and as such it is directed to the execution of his sentence. Accordingly, the proper

venue is the district of petitioner’s confinement, the Eastern District of California. See 28

U.S.C. § 84(b). 

Because venue is proper in the Eastern District, this case is 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 transfer this matter forthwith and terminate docket number 2 and any

other pending motions from this Court’s docket. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 10/02/07

 MARTIN J. JENKINS

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-04521-MJJ Document 5 Filed 10/03/07 Page 2 of 2