Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-00505/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-00505-0/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

Order of Transfer

P:\pro-se\sj.rmw\hc.06\Shivers505trans 1

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROY LORENZO SHIVERS, III,

Petitioner,

 vs.

MIKE EVANS, Warden,

Respondent.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-505 JF (PR)

ORDER OF TRANSFER

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed an application to file a delayed

or successive petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On

January 26, 2006, the instant habeas action was transferred to this Court, as an original

habeas petition pursuant to § 2254. On February 27, 2006, Petitioner filed a motion for

extension of time to file and complete his in forma pauperis application due to his transfer

to a new prison facility. The Court granted Petitioner’s motion for extension of time to

file an in forma pauperis application. Petitioner has filed a motion to proceed in forma

pauperis and two motions for discovery. Upon review of Petitioner’s discovery motions,

it appears that the instant petition challenges his convictions from Riverside County. 

**Original filed 12/11/06**

Case 5:06-cv-00505-JF Document 11 Filed 12/11/06 Page 1 of 3
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

P:\pro-se\sj.rmw\hc.06\Shivers505trans 2

Venue for a habeas action is proper in either the district of confinement or the

district of conviction, 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d); however, petitions challenging a conviction

are preferably heard in the district of conviction. See Habeas L.R. 2254-3(a); Laue v.

Nelson, 279 F. Supp. 265, 266 (N.D. Cal. 1968); cf. Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249

(9th Cir. 1989) (district of confinement best forum to review execution of sentence).

Accordingly, this case is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for

the Central District of California. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b), 1404(a); Habeas L.R. 2254-

3(b)(1). In view of the transfer, the Court will not rule upon Petitioner’s pending motion

to proceed in forma pauperis and motions for discovery (docket nos. 7, 9, 10). The Clerk

shall terminate all pending motions and transfer the entire file to the Central District of

California. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: _______________ JEREMY FOGEL 

United States District Judge

12/11/06

Case 5:06-cv-00505-JF Document 11 Filed 12/11/06 Page 2 of 3
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

P:\pro-se\sj.rmw\hc.06\Shivers505trans 3

A copy of this ruling was mailed to the following:

Roy Lorenzo Shivers, III

K-48029

Kern Valley State Prison

P.O. Box 6000

Delano, CA 93216-6000

Case 5:06-cv-00505-JF Document 11 Filed 12/11/06 Page 3 of 3