Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05761/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05761-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Joseph Hernandez Luna
Petitioner
John F. Salazar
Respondent
Arnold Schwarzenegger
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH HERNANDEZ LUNA,

Petitioner,

 vs.

JOHN F. SALAZAR, Warden CVSP,

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,

Governor, et al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

C 07-5761 MMC(PR)

ORDER OF TRANSFER

On November 14, 2007, petitioner, a prisoner at Chuckawalla Valley State Prison, and

proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254. He challenges the Governor of California’s reversal of a decision by the

California Board of Parole Hearings finding petitioner suitable for parole. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, venue for a habeas action is proper in either the district

of confinement or the district of conviction, and the district in which the petition is filed may

transfer the petition to such other district in the furtherance of justice. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2241(d); see, e.g., 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, such as parole or time credit

claims, the district of confinement is the preferable forum. See Habeas L.R. 2254-3(a);

Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989); see also Dannenberg v. Ingle, 831 F.

Supp. 767, 767 (N.D. Cal. 1993) (holding petition challenging conviction or sentence should

be heard in district of conviction). 

Case 3:07-cv-05761-MMC Document 3 Filed 11/27/07 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

Chuckawalla Valley State Prison, where petitioner is confined, is located in Riverside

County, which is located within the venue of the Central District of California. See 28

U.S.C. § 84(c). Under such circumstances, and given the nature of petitioner’s claims, the

Central District is the preferable forum.

Accordingly, the above-titled action is hereby TRANSFERRED to the United States

District Court for the Central District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a); Habeas L.R.

2254-3(b). 

The Clerk shall close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 27, 2007

 MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-05761-MMC Document 3 Filed 11/27/07 Page 2 of 2