Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00855/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00855-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert Edwin Hoffman
Petitioner
John Marshall
Respondent

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT EDWIN HOFFMAN, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

JOHN MARSHALL, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:06-cv-00855-OWW-TAG HC

ORDER RE TRANSFER TO THE CENTRAL

DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

The instant petition was filed on July 6, 2006. (Doc. 1). Petitioner is presently confined

at California Men’s Colony, San Luis Obispo, California. (Doc. 1). In his petition, Petitioner

alleges that he was denied parole in violation of his constitutional rights . (Doc. 1, pp. 8-57). 

Petitioner does not appear to challenge his conviction from Tulare County Superior Court; rather,

he clearly indicates that he is challenging Governor Schwarzenegger’s September 22, 2004

decision to reverse the Board of Prison Terms’ decision to grant Petitioner parole. (E.g., Doc. 1,

p. 28). Thus, Petitioner is challenging not the fact of his conviction but the execution of his

sentence.

As a general matter, venue is preferable in the district of confinement when the petition

seeks review of the execution of a sentence. Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir.

1989); cf. Laue v. Nelson, 279 F.Supp. 265, 266 (N.D. Cal. 1968)(district of conviction

Case 1:06-cv-00855-OWW -TAG Document 5 Filed 12/20/06 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

27

28

2

preferable forum to review conviction). Because Petitioner is challenging the execution of his

sentence, venue is proper in the district of his confinement. In this case, the California Men’s

Colony, San Luis Obispo, California, is located within 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: December 15, 2006 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:06-cv-00855-OWW -TAG Document 5 Filed 12/20/06 Page 2 of 2