Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01469/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01469-0/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

JOHN STEELMAN,

Petitioner, 

vs.

T. BUSBY,

Respondent.

 /

1:10-cv-01469-JLT (HC)

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF

CALIFORNIA

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

U.S.C. § 2254, together with a request to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 

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 a habeas matter, venue is proper in either the district of conviction or the district of

confinement. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). Where a petitioner attacks the execution of his sentence, the

proper forum in which to review such a claim is the district of confinement. See Dunn v. Henman,

-1-

Case 1:10-cv-01469-JLT Document 3 Filed 08/25/10 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

875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989) (stating, in a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 action, that "[t]he proper forum to

challenge the execution of a sentence is the district where the prisoner is confined.").

In this case, the Petitioner is challenging a February 2009 decision of the Board of Parole

Hearings denying parole suitability for Petitioner. Petitioner is thus challenging the execution of his

sentence and therefore the proper venue is the district in which Petitioner is incarcerated. Petitioner

is presently incarcerated at Ironwood State Prison, Blythe, California, which is located within the

Central District of California. Therefore, the petition should have been filed in the United States

District Court for the Central District of California. In the interest of justice, a federal court may

transfer a case filed in the wrong district to the correct district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); Starnes v.

McGuire, 512 F.2d 918, 932 (D.C. Cir. 1974).

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: August 25, 2010 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

9j7khi UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

-2-

Case 1:10-cv-01469-JLT Document 3 Filed 08/25/10 Page 2 of 2