Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-04485/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-04485-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
R. Davis
Respondent
Walter Watson
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 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

WALTER WATSON, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

R. DAVIS, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:16-cv-1784-EFB P 

ORDER 

 Petitioner is a state prisoner without counsel seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 2254. He challenges the May 27, 2015 decision of the California Board of Parole 

Hearings to deny him parole. Consequently, the instant petition is one for review of the execution 

of a sentence imposed by a California state court. See Rosas v. Nielsen, 428 F.3d 1229, 1232 (9th 

Cir. 2005) (denial of parole is “a decision ‘regarding the execution’ of” a prison sentence.) As a 

general rule, “[t]he proper forum to challenge the execution of a sentence is the district where the 

prisoner is confined.” Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989). Petitioner is 

incarcerated at San Quentin State Prison, County of Marin, which lies in the Northern District of 

California. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(a). 

 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 2241(d), courts in both the district of conviction and the district of 

confinement have concurrent jurisdiction over applications for habeas corpus filed by state 

prisoners. While petitioner was convicted in this district, for the reasons set forth supra, the 

Case 4:16-cv-04485-DMR Document 3 Filed 08/04/16 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

proper forum for the instant challenge is in the district of confinement. In the interest of justice, 

this court may transfer this action “to any other district where it might have been brought.” 28 

U.S.C. § 1404(a). Therefore, in the interest of justice, this action will be transferred to the United 

States District Court for the Northern District of California. 

 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is transferred to 

the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d); 28 

U.S.C. § 1406(a). 

DATED: August 4, 2016. 

Case 4:16-cv-04485-DMR Document 3 Filed 08/04/16 Page 2 of 2