Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00146/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00146-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jesus Solis Arreola
Petitioner
D. K. Sisto
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

JESUS SOLIS ARREOLA, 1:06-CV-01814-OWW-SMS-HC

Petitioner, 

 v. 

D. K. SISTO, Warden, ORDER OF TRANSFER

 /

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 Board of Prison Terms regarding his

suitability for parole. Petitioner has not paid the $5.00 filing fee 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 proper

forum in which to review such a claim is the district of confinement. See Dunn v. Henman, 875 F.2d

Case 2:07-cv-00146-MCE -GGH Document 4 Filed 01/23/07 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

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 Fresno Division of the Eastern District of California. He is currently incarcerated at the California

State Prison Solano at Vacaville, in Solano County, which lies within the Sacramento Division of the

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 mattershould be addressed in the forum where

petitioner is confined. Therefore, the petition should have been filed in the Sacramento Division of the

United States District Court for the Eastern District of California.

Pursuant to Local Rule 3-120(b), a civil action which has not been commenced in the proper

court may, on the court’s own motion, be transferred to the proper court. Therefore, this action will be

transferred to the Sacramento Division of the Eastern District of California. 

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. This action is transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of

California sitting in Sacramento; and

2. All future filings shall refer to the new Sacramento case number assigned and shall be filed

at:

United States District Court

Eastern District of California

501 "I" Street, Suite 4-200

Sacramento, CA 95814

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 22, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

ah0l4d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:07-cv-00146-MCE -GGH Document 4 Filed 01/23/07 Page 2 of 2