Opinion
1:23-cv-00007-HBK (HC)
01-05-2023
KENNETH WALTER LOUIS SMITH, Petitioner, v. ON HABEAS CORPUS, Respondent.
ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE EASTERN DIVISION OF THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
(DOC. NO. 1)
HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA, MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Petitioner initiated this action while by filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging prison disciplinary proceedings that resulted in the loss of time credits. (Doc. No. 1 at 3). Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d), jurisdiction is proper in the judicial district where the petitioner was convicted or where the petitioner is incarcerated. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d); Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 428 (2004). However, “[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). As a general rule, “[t]he proper forum to challenge the execution of a sentence is the district where the prisoner is confined.” Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989).
Petitioner filed the petition while incarcerated at the California Institution for Men located in San Bernardino County, which lies in the Eastern Division of the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Further, the disciplinary proceedings that resulted in the loss of good time credits took place in this same institution. Thus, the court finds in its discretion “and in furtherance of justice” the petition should be transferred to the Eastern Division of the Central District of California. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a), 2241(d).
Accordingly:
1. The Clerk shall transfer this action to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Eastern Division; and
2. All future filings shall reference the new case number assigned and shall be filed at:
United States District Court Central District of California Eastern Division 3470 Twelfth Street Riverside, CA 92501-3801