Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00288/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00288-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ivan Von Staich
Petitioner
E. Valenzuela
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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

IVAN VON STAICH,

Petitioner,

v.

E. VALENZUELA,

Respondent.

No. 2:15-cv-0288 GEB KJN P 

ORDER

 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas 

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

court will not rule on petitioner’s request to proceed in forma pauperis. 

Petitioner challenges the 2012 decision by Governor Brown to reverse the 2011 decision 

by the Board of Parole Hearings finding petitioner suitable for parole. Petitioner was convicted in 

Orange County. Petitioner is incarcerated at the California Men’s Colony located in San Luis 

Obispo County. San Luis Obispo County is located within the jurisdiction of the United States 

District Court for the Central District of California. 

Statutory provisions permit the filing of a habeas petition challenging a conviction in the 

district of confinement or the district of conviction. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). Such a petition should 

generally be decided by the district in which the conviction was sustained. Laue v. Nelson, 279 

F.Supp. 265, 266 (C.D.Cal. 1968). However, when the petition is directed to the manner in which 

Case 2:15-cv-00288-GEB-KJN Document 14 Filed 12/11/15 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

a sentence is being executed, such as a claim concerning parole or time credits, the district of 

confinement is the preferable forum. Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989).

For the reasons set forth above, the most appropriate forum for the instant action is the 

district where petitioner is confined. Therefore, in the interest of justice, this action will be 

transferred to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The 

undersigned apologizes for the delay in making the determination that this action should be 

transferred. However, for the reasons discussed above, the decision to transfer this action is 

appropriate. 

 Accordingly, in the furtherance of justice, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. This court has not ruled on petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis; and 

 2. This matter is transferred to the United States District Court for the Central District of 

California.

Dated: December 11, 2015 

Vonstaich.tra 

Case 2:15-cv-00288-GEB-KJN Document 14 Filed 12/11/15 Page 2 of 2