Opinion
1:11-cv-01499-JLT (HC)
09-11-2011
JOHN HARDNEY, Petitioner, v. D. ADAMS, Respondent.
ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together with a request to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
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).
As a general matter, venue is preferable in the district of confinement when the petition seeks review of the execution of a sentence. Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989); cf. Laue v. Nelson, 279 F.Supp. 265, 266 (N.D. Cal. 1968)(district of conviction preferable forum to review conviction). 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).
In this case, the petitioner is challenging the results of a prison disciplinary hearing at which Petitioner was found guilty of willfully delaying and obstructing a peace officer. As a result of that hearing, Petitioner was sanctioned with the loss of ninety days of credits. Therefore, Petitioner is challenging the execution of his sentence, and, accordingly, the petition should have been filed in the district of Petitioner's confinement. Petitioner is presently confined in Pelican Bay State Prison, which lies within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE