Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01325/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01325-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ray Ford
Petitioner
Anthony Malfi
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAY FORD,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-06-1028 MCE DAD P

vs.

ANTHONY MALFI, Warden, 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding through counsel, has filed an application for

a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has paid the filing fee. In his

application, petitioner challenges the decision of the Board of Parole Hearings finding him

unsuitable for parole. Petitioner is confined at the Sierra Conservation Center which is located in

Tuolumne County. The parole hearing which resulted in the decision now challenged was held at

the California Men’s Colony in San Luis Obispo County. Petitioner’s underlying judgment of

conviction was entered in the Los Angeles County Superior Court.

Through this habeas action petitioner seeks to challenge the execution of his

sentence as opposed to his underlying criminal conviction. In determining the proper venue for

this action, several factors are to be considered. Venue is proper in a habeas action in either the

district of confinement or the district of conviction. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). However, the district

Case 1:06-cv-01325-DLJ Document 17 Filed 09/22/06 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

2

of confinement is the preferable forum where the action challenges the execution of a sentence. 

Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989); see also Whitney v. Brown, No.

105CV00557 RECTAGHC, 2005 WL 1704322, at *2 (E.D. Cal. July 14, 2005) (transferring case

to district where petitioner was incarcerated and where most of petitioner’s records relating to his

incarcerations, parole releases, and parole revocations were located). As noted above petitioner

is now, and was at the time of the filing of this action, confined at the Sierra Conservation Center

which is located in Tuolumne County which in turn is part of the Fresno Division of the United

States District Court for the Eastern District of California. See Local Rule 3-120(d). 

Pursuant to Local Rule 3-120(f), a civil action which has not been commenced in

the proper division of a court may, on the court’s own motion, be transferred to the proper

division of the court. Therefore, this action will be transferred to the Fresno Division of the

court. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. This action is transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of California sitting in Fresno; and

2. All future filings shall reference the new Fresno case number assigned and

shall be filed at:

United States District Court

Eastern District of California

2500 Tulare Street

Fresno, CA 93721

DATED: September 21, 2006.

DAD:4

ford1028.109

Case 1:06-cv-01325-DLJ Document 17 Filed 09/22/06 Page 2 of 2