Opinion
1:05-CV-1237 AWI SMS HC.
February 15, 2006
ORDER OF TRANSFER
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has paid the filing fee.
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 this case, the petitioner is challenging the failure of prison officials to find him suitable for parole. Where "the petition is directed to the manner in which a sentence is being executed, e.g., if it involves parole or time credits claims, the district of confinement is the preferable forum." Russo v. Newland, 2000 WL 194812, *1 (N.D.Cal.); accord, In re Phelon, 2002 WL 31618536, *1 (N.D. Cal.); Thomas v. Hepburn, 2001 WL 505916, *1 (N.D.Cal.); McKnight v. Forman, 1997 WL 50267, *1 (N.D. Cal.). Petitioner is incarcerated at Chuckawalla Valley State Prison, which is within the jurisdictional boundaries of the Central District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(b). Therefore, in the interest of justice the petition will be transferred to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a) and 2241(d).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
IT IS SO ORDERED.