Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01412/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01412-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VINCENT RATAZAK,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-06-1412 DFL DAD P

vs.

KEN CLARKE, 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, together with a request to proceed in forma

pauperis. In his application, petitioner seeks review of the California Board of Prison Terms'

decision to deny him parole. In determining the proper venue for this action, several factors are

to be considered. Petitioner is presently confined at the California Substance Abuse and

Treatment Facility in Corcoran which in turn is located within Kings County. The parole hearing

which resulted in the decision to deny parole that petitioner now challenges was also held at the

Treatment Facility in Corcoran. Petitioner’s underlying judgment of conviction was entered in

the San Bernardino County Superior Court. 

Through this habeas action petitioner seeks to challenge the execution of his

sentence as opposed to his underlying criminal conviction. Venue is proper in a habeas action in

Case 2:06-cv-01412-DFL-DAD Document 4 Filed 07/18/06 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

2

either the district of confinement or the district of conviction. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). However,

the district of confinement is the preferable forum where the action challenges the execution of a

sentence. Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989); see also Whitney v. Brown, No.

105CV00557 RECTAGHC, 2005 WL 1704322, at *2 (E.D. Cal. July 14, 2005) (transferring case

to district where petitioner was incarcerated in large part and where most of petitioner’s records

relating to his incarcerations, parole releases, and parole revocations were located). As noted

above, the California Substance Abuse and Treatment Facility is located in Kings County which

is part of the Fresno Division of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of

California. See Local Rule 3-120(d). 

Pursuant to Local Rule 3-120(f), a civil action which has not been commenced in

the proper division of a court may, on the court’s own motion, be transferred to the proper

division of the court. Therefore, this action will be transferred to the Fresno Division of the

court. This court will not rule on petitioner’s request to proceed in forma pauperis.

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. This court has not ruled on petitioner’s request to proceed in forma pauperis;

2. This action is transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of California sitting in Fresno; and

3. All future filings shall reference the new Fresno case number assigned and

shall be filed at:

United States District Court

Eastern District of California

2500 Tulare Street

Fresno, CA 93721

DATED: July 17, 2006.

DAD:4

rata1412.109

Case 2:06-cv-01412-DFL-DAD Document 4 Filed 07/18/06 Page 2 of 2