Hicks v. Board of Parole Hearings

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: October 21, 2022
• Docket: 5:22-cv-06060
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 MICHAEL J. HICKS, Case No. 22-06060 NC (PR)

12 Petitioner, ORDER OF TRANSFER 13 v.

14 BOARD OF PAROLE HEARINGS, 15 Respondent. 16

17 Petitioner, a state prisoner at California State Prison, Sacramento, has filed a 18 petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See Dkt. No. 1 (“Petition”). 19 Petitioner challenges his parole determination. See id. at 9 (arguing that Petitioner should 20 have been given “elder parole consideration” in his August 2021 parole hearing). 21 Venue for a habeas action is proper in either the district of confinement or the 22 district of conviction. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). But if the petition challenges the manner 23 in which a sentence is being executed, as Petitioner’s does, the district of confinement is 24 the preferable forum. See Habeas L.R. 2254-3(b)(2) (stating that a petition should be 25 heard in the district of confinement if it challenges the manner in which the sentence is 26 carried out); see also Tucker v. Carlson, 925 F.2d 330, 331 (9th Cir. 1991) (stating that a 1 challenge to a parole decision “challenges the manner in which his sentence was 2 executed”). 3 Here, Petitioner is housed, and the challenged parole decision was made, in 4 Sacramento County. See Pet. at 1. Sacramento County lies within the Eastern District of 5 California, and so venue is proper in the Eastern District of California. 6 Accordingly, this case is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for 7 the Eastern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). The Clerk shall terminate all 8 pending motions and transfer the entire file to the Eastern District of California. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 DATED: October 21, 2022 NATHANAEL M. COUSINS 11 United States Magistrate Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26