Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01237/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01237-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RODERICK K. THOMPSON, 1:05-CV-1237 AWI SMS HC

Petitioner, 

vs.

M. A. MUNTZ, Warden,

Respondent. ORDER OF TRANSFER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a habeas corpus action pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has paid the filing fee. 

The federal venue statute requires that a civil action, other than one based on diversity

jurisdiction, be brought only in “(1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants

reside in the same state, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions

giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of the property that is the subject of the action is

situated, or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant may be found, if there is no district in which

the action may otherwise be brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

In this case, the petitioner is challenging the failure of prison officials to find him suitable for

parole. Where "the petition is directed to the manner in which a sentence is being executed, e.g., if it

involves parole or time credits claims, the district of confinement is the preferable forum." Russo v.

Newland, 2000 WL 194812, *1 (N.D.Cal.); accord, In re Phelon, 2002 WL 31618536, *1 (N.D. Cal.);

Case 1:05-cv-01237-AWI -SMS Document 6 Filed 02/16/06 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

Thomas v. Hepburn, 2001 WL 505916, *1 (N.D.Cal.); McKnight v. Forman, 1997 WL 50267, *1 (N.D.

Cal.). Petitioner is incarcerated at Chuckawalla Valley State Prison, which is within the jurisdictional

boundaries of the Central District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(b). Therefore, in the interest of

justice the petition will be transferred to the United States District Court for the Central District of

California. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a) and 2241(d).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the United States

District Court for the Central District of California.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 15, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

23ehd0 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01237-AWI -SMS Document 6 Filed 02/16/06 Page 2 of 2