Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01256/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01256-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James Tilton
Respondent
Harold Walker
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

HAROLD WALKER, 1:07-cv-01256 AWI DLB HC

Petitioner, 

vs. ORDER OF TRANSFER

JAMES TILTON,

Respondent.

 /

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 Governor of the State of

California/Board of Prison Terms regarding his suitability for parole. Petitioner has 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 proper

Case 1:07-cv-01256-WWS Document 4 Filed 09/10/07 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

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 the Correctional Training Facility, in

Monterey County, which lies within the Northern 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 Northern 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 Northern District of California.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 10, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

ah0l4d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01256-WWS Document 4 Filed 09/10/07 Page 2 of 2