Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-00115/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-00115-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Marcia Ellen Bunney
Petitioner
Ron Kenan
Respondent

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARCIA ELLEN BUNNEY, 

Petitioner,

v.

RON KENAN,

Respondent. _______________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 06-0115 SBA (pr) 

ORDER OF

TRANSFER

Petitioner Marcia Ellen Bunney, a prisoner incarcerated at Central California Women's

Facility in Chowchilla, California, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2254. She challenges the denial of her suitability for parole by the California Board

of Prison Terms. 

A petition for a writ of habeas corpus made by a person in custody under the judgment

and sentence of a state court of a state which contains two or more federal judicial districts may

be filed in either the district of confinement or the district of conviction. See 28 U.S.C. §

2241(d). Each of such districts shall have concurrent jurisdiction to entertain the petition;

however, the district court for the district where the petition is filed may transfer the petition to

the other district in the furtherance of justice. See id. Federal courts in California traditionally

have chosen to hear petitions challenging a conviction or sentence in the district of conviction. 

See Dannenberg v. Ingle, 831 F. Supp. 767, 767 (N.D. Cal. 1993); Laue v. Nelson, 279 F. Supp.

265, 266 (N.D. Cal. 1968). If the petition is directed to the manner in which a sentence is being

executed, e.g., if it involves parole or time credits claims, the district of confinement is the

preferable forum. See Habeas L.R. 2254-3(b); Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir.

1989). In this case, the petition challenges the denial of parole, and as such it is directed to the

execution of her sentence. Accordingly, the proper venue is the district of petitioner’s

confinement, the Eastern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(b). 

Because venue is proper in the Eastern District, this case is TRANSFERRED to the

Case 4:06-cv-00115-SBA Document 2 Filed 02/27/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a);

Habeas L.R. 2254-3(b). 

The Clerk shall transfer this matter forthwith, and terminate docket number 1 and any

other pending motions from this Court’s docket. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 2/24/06 _______________________________

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG

United States District Judge

Case 4:06-cv-00115-SBA Document 2 Filed 02/27/06 Page 2 of 2