Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-06418/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-06418-4/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HAROLD B. BROOKS,

Petitioner,

v.

R. FOX,

Respondent.

Case No. 16-cv-06418-HSG 

ORDER OF TRANSFER; DENYING 

MOTION TO DIMISS AS MOOT

Re: Dkt. No. 15

Petitioner, a state prisoner incarcerated at California Medical Facility in Vacaville, 

California, filed this pro se writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Now pending 

before the Court is Respondent’s motion to transfer or, in the alternative, dismiss the petition. 

Dkt. No. 15. Petitioner has filed an opposition. Dkt. No. 18. Respondent has not filed a reply, 

and the time to do so has long since passed. Having reviewed the petition and the pleadings, the 

Court will TRANSFER this action.

Petitioner was convicted in San Francisco County, which lies in this district. However, the 

petition challenges the execution of his sentence. Specifically, Petitioner alleges that the Board of 

Prison Terms erred in denying him parole, and that his ongoing confinement is disproportionate to 

his culpability and violates the Eighth Amendment. Dkt. No. 9 at 5; Dkt. No. 13 at 2. 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 conviction or the district of confinement. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). Petitioner is correct 

that each of such districts has concurrent jurisdiction to entertain the petition. Id. 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, and the district of conviction is not required to hear the petition. See 

Case 4:16-cv-06418-HSG Document 19 Filed 05/16/19 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

id. Federal courts in California traditionally have chosen to hear petitions challenging a 

conviction or sentence in the district of conviction or sentencing. See Habeas L.R. 2254-3(b)(1); 

Laue v. Nelson, 279 F. Supp. 265 (N.D. Cal. 1968). But if the petition challenges the manner in 

which a sentence is being executed, e.g., if it involves parole or time credits claims, as is the case 

here, the district of confinement is the preferable forum. See Habeas L.R. 2254-3(b)(2); Dunne v. 

Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989). 

Petitioner’s habeas claims challenge the execution of his sentence, in that they challenge 

the denial of parole, and Petitioner is housed in California Medical Facility in Solano County, 

which lies within the venue of the Eastern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(c)(1). The 

Eastern District is the preferable venue for this action. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) and 

Habeas Local Rule 2254-3(b), and in the interest of justice, this action is TRANSFERRED to the 

United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. The motion to dismiss is 

therefore DENIED without prejudice to re-filing after this action has been transferred to the 

appropriate venue. The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

5/16/2019

Case 4:16-cv-06418-HSG Document 19 Filed 05/16/19 Page 2 of 2