Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00245/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00245-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gerald Collins
Petitioner
S.R. Moore
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

GERALD COLLINS,

Petitioner, 

vs.

S.R. MOORE,

Respondent.

 /

1:08-cv-00245-AWI-TAG (HC)

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO

SACRAMENTO DIVISION

Petitioner, a state prisoner, has filed a habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, in

which he challenges a decision reached by the Governor of the State of California regarding his

suitability for parole. 

The federal venue statute requires that a civil action, other than one based on diversity

jurisdiction, be brought only in “(1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants

reside in the same state, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions

giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of the property that is the subject of the action

is situated, or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant may be found, if there is no district in

which the action may otherwise be brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

In a habeas matter, venue is proper in either the district of conviction or the district of

confinement. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). Where a petitioner attacks the execution of his sentence, the

proper forum in which to review such a claim is the district of confinement. See Dunn v. Henman,

875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989) (stating, in a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 action, that “[t]he proper forum to

challenge the execution of a sentence is the district where the prisoner is confined.”).

Case 1:08-cv-00245-AWI-TAG Document 13 Filed 02/26/08 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-

In this case, Petitioner was sentenced in Los Angeles County Superior Court, which is

located within the Central District of California. He is currently incarcerated at the Deuel Vocational

Institution, in San Joaquin County, which lies within the Sacramento Division of the United States

District Court for the Eastern District of California. Because the instant petition is premised on

events relating to Petitioner’s parole proceedings, the Court construes it as a challenge to the

execution of Petitioner’s sentence, as opposed to an attack on the conviction itself. Thus, this matter

should be addressed in the forum where Petitioner is confined. Therefore, the petition should have

been filed in the Sacramento Division of United States District Court for the Eastern District of

California. In the interest 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); Starnes v. McGuire, 512 F.2d 918, 932 (D.C. Cir.

1974).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the United States

District Court for the Eastern District of California sitting in Sacramento.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 22, 2008 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:08-cv-00245-AWI-TAG Document 13 Filed 02/26/08 Page 2 of 2