Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-03167/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-03167-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jason Zhang Gao
Petitioner
Warden, California Correctional Institution
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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JASON ZHANG GAO,

Petitioner,

v.

WARDEN, CALIFORNIA 

CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

Respondent.

Case No. 19-cv-03167-JD 

ORDER OF TRANSFER 

Re: Dkt. No. 2

This is a habeas case filed pro se by a state prisoner. He seeks review of a prison 

disciplinary finding that resulted in additional prison time. It is not clear where the disciplinary 

finding occurred. However, plaintiff is currently housed at California Correctional Institution

which is in the Eastern District of California. 

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 of confinement is the preferable forum to 

review the execution of a sentence. Habeas L.R. 2254-3(a); Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 

(9th Cir. 1989). Because petitioner’s challenge goes to the execution of his sentence, this petition 

is transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. See 28 

U.S.C. § 1404(a); Habeas L.R. 2254-3(b). 1 

 

1 Petitioner argues that he was found guilty at a prison disciplinary hearing in violation of the 

Sixth Amendment because his sentence was increased. To the extent he argues that the trier of 

fact found a factor that increased his punishment, instead of a jury, he is not entitled to relief. 

Prison disciplinary proceedings are not part of a criminal prosecution and the full panoply of rights 

due a defendant in such proceedings does not apply. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556-

57 (1974). 

Case 3:19-cv-03167-JD Document 7 Filed 07/30/19 Page 1 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

The Court will not rule on the motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No. 2) which is 

VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 30, 2019

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-03167-JD Document 7 Filed 07/30/19 Page 2 of 3
3

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JASON ZHANG GAO,

Plaintiff,

v.

WARDEN, CALIFORNIA 

CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

Defendant.

Case No. 19-cv-03167-JD 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 

District Court, Northern District of California.

That on July 30, 2019, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing 

said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by 

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery 

receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Jason Zhang Gao ID: F90757

California Correctional Institution

P.O. Box 107

Tehachapi, CA 93581 

Dated: July 30, 2019

Susan Y. Soong

Clerk, United States District Court

By:________________________

LISA R. CLARK, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable JAMES DONATO

Case 3:19-cv-03167-JD Document 7 Filed 07/30/19 Page 3 of 3