Denell Caver v. Leanna Lundy

Opinion

DENELL CAVER, No. 2:25-cv-2019 CSK P Petitioner, v. ORDER Respondent. Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has not paid the filing fee or submitted a request to proceed in forma pauperis. Petitioner challenges the April 2024 decision of the California Board of Parole Hearings to deny him parole. Consequently, the instant petition is one for review of the execution of a sentence imposed by a California state court. See Rosas v. Nielsen, 428 F.3d 1229, 1232 (9th Cir. 2005) (denial of parole is “a decision ‘regarding the execution’ of” a prison sentence). 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 is incarcerated at California State Prison, Los Angeles County, which is located in the Central District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(a). /// Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d), courts in both the district of conviction and the district of confinement have concurrent jurisdiction over applications for habeas corpus filed by state prisoners. Here, petitioner was convicted in, and is currently incarcerated in, Los Angeles County. Thus, the court in the Central District of California has jurisdiction petitioner’s application for habeas corpus. In the interest of justice, this court may transfer this action “to any other district where it might have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Accordingly, in the interest of justice, this action is transferred to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d); 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). Dated: September 3, 2025 4 aA Aan Spe | CHI SOO KIM UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□