Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00093/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00093-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Matthew Cate
Respondent
Matthew Vincent Salinas
Petitioner

Document Text:

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

MATTHEW VINCENT SALINAS,

Petitioner, 

vs.

MATTHEW CATE,

Respondent.

 /

1:11-cv-00020-SMS (HC)

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT ARIZONA

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

U.S.C. § 2254, in which he challenges the execution of his sentence with respect to the calculation of

his parole period or application of the parole laws. Petitioner has not paid the $5.00 filing fee or

submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis for this action. 

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

-1-

Case 2:11-cv-00093-SRB--LOA Document 2 Filed 01/12/11 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

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

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, petitioner was sentenced in Kern County Superior Court, which is located within

the Eastern District of California. He is currently incarcerated at La Palma Correctional Center, in

Pinal County, which lies within the District of Arizona. Because the instant petition is premised on

events relating to the execution of Petitioner’s sentence and the application of the parole laws to

Petitioner, the Court construes it as a challenge to the execution of petitioner's sentence, as opposed

to an attack on the conviction itself. Thus, this matter should be addressed in the forum where

petitioner is confined. Therefore, the petition should have been filed in the United States District

Court for the District of Arizona. 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 District of Arizona. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 12, 2011 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

3em3ec UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-2-

Case 2:11-cv-00093-SRB--LOA Document 2 Filed 01/12/11 Page 2 of 2