Barth v. Lazarraga

CourtDistrict Court, N.D. California
DecidedDecember 16, 2019
Docket5:19-cv-05223
StatusUnknown

This text of Barth v. Lazarraga (Barth v. Lazarraga) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Barth v. Lazarraga, (N.D. Cal. 2019).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SHAWN DAMON BARTH, 11 Case No. 19-05223 BLF (PR) Petitioner, 12 ORDER OF TRANSER v. 13

14 JOE A. LAZARRAGA, Warden, 15 Respondent.

17 18 Petitioner, a state prisoner, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 19 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging a disciplinary action that resulted in the loss of credits while he 20 was housed at the Mule Creek Prison in Ione. (Docket No. 1-3 at 8-21.) Venue for a 21 habeas action is proper in either the district of confinement or the district of conviction, 28 22 U.S.C. § 2241(d). Federal courts in California traditionally have chosen to hear petitions 23 challenging a conviction or sentence in the district of conviction or sentencing. See 24 Habeas L.R. 2254-3(b)(1); Dannenberg v. Ingle, 831 F. Supp. 767, 768 (N.D. Cal. 1993); 25 Laue v. Nelson, 279 F. Supp. 265, 266 (N.D. Cal. 1968). But if the petition challenges the 26 manner in which a sentence is being executed, e.g., if it involves parole or time credits 27 claims, the district of confinement is the preferable forum. See Habeas L.R. 2254-3(b)(2); 1 Here, Petitioner 1s challenging a disciplinary action that resulted in the loss of 2 credits, (Docket No. 1-3 at 19), which makes the district of confinement the preferable 3 || forum. /d. Petitioner is currently confined at the California Medical Facility in Vacaville. 4 || (Docket No. 8 at 1.) Vacaville is located in Solano County, which lies within the Eastern 5 || District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(b). Therefore, the preferred venue for this 6 |} action is in that district and not in this one. See id.; Habeas L.R. 2254-3(a)(1). 7 || Accordingly, this case is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the g || Eastern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); Habeas L.R. 2254-3(b)(1). 9 The Clerk shall terminate all pending motions and transfer the entire file to the 10 || Eastern District of California. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 || Dated: December 16, 2019 flour harman) 1 BETH LABSON FREEMAN 3 United States District Judge

15 16 &

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PRO. SEBLIHC. 19\05223Barth_transfer(ED) 26 27

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Dannenberg v. Ingle
831 F. Supp. 767 (N.D. California, 1993)
Laue v. Nelson
279 F. Supp. 265 (N.D. California, 1968)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Barth v. Lazarraga, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barth-v-lazarraga-cand-2019.