Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01402/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01402-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Morgan James Kane
Petitioner
Steve Moore
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-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MORGAN JAMES KANE,

Petitioner, 

vs.

STEVE MOORE,

Respondent.

 /

1:08-cv-00839 WMW (HC)

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO

SACRAMENTO

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

U.S.C. § 2254, in which he challenges a decision reached by the of Board of Parole Hearings

regarding his suitability for parole. Petitioner has paid the $5.00 filing fee. 

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, the7

Case 2:08-cv-01402-MCE -KJM Document 3 Filed 06/20/08 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-

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 Fresno County Superior Court, which is located

within the Eastern District of California. He is currently incarcerated at Deuel Vocational

Institution, in San Joaquin County, which lies within the Sacramento Eastern District of California. 

Because the instant petition is premised on events relating to Petitioner's parole proceedings, 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

Sacramento Eastern 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 Sacramento Eastern District.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 18, 2008 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

bl0dc4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:08-cv-01402-MCE -KJM Document 3 Filed 06/20/08 Page 2 of 2