Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00128/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00128-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jorge Perez-Robles
Petitioner
United States of America
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

JORGE PEREZ-ROBLES,

Petitioner,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

1:16-cv-00128 MJS HC 

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH 

CAROLINA

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

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

On January 25, 2016, Petitioner, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in the 

United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. Petitioner was convicted 

and sentenced in the Eastern District of California, but is currently incarcerated at Rivers 

Correctional Institution in Winton, North Carolina. Rivers Correctional Institution is 

located in Hertford County, North Carolina, and within the jurisdiction of the United 

States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. 

A challenge to the execution of a federal sentence is properly brought in a petition 

for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See United States v. Giddings, 740 

F.2d 770, 772 (9th Cir. 1984). And it is preferably brought in the district of confinement. 

Case 1:16-cv-00128-MJS Document 2 Filed 02/01/16 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

See Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989) (noting that even if district 

court has personal jurisdiction over custodian, preferred forum is district where petitioner 

is confined); see also Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 159 L. Ed. 2d 513, 124 S. Ct. 

2711, 2722 (2004) ("[F]or core habeas petitions challenging present physical 

confinement, jurisdiction lies in only one district: the district of confinement."). In the 

interests 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). In this case, Petitioner is not challenging his 

sentence. Instead he is challenging the Bureau of Prison’s decisions not to place him in 

a prison facility within 500 miles of his family or allow him to participate in the prison 

substance abuse treatment program. Accordingly, such challenges are to the execution 

of his sentence rather than to his conviction, and should be brought in the district of 

confinement.

In the interests of justice, the Court HEREBY ORDERS the instant action be 

transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 31, 2016 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00128-MJS Document 2 Filed 02/01/16 Page 2 of 2