Jones v. Montgomery

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 WILLIAM M. JONES, Case No. 23-cv-02143-JD 4 Petitioner, ORDER OF TRANSFER 8 v. 9 WARREN L. MONTGOMERY, 10 Respondent. 11 12 This is a habeas case filed pro se by a state prisoner. Petitioner challenges the denial by 5 13 || the Board of Parole Hearings of his request to advance his next parole hearing. Venue for a 14 || habeas action is proper in either the district of confinement or the district of conviction, 28 U.S.C. 3 15 § 2241(d). If the petition is directed to the manner in which a sentence is being executed, e.g., if it a 16 involves parole or time credits claims, the district of confinement is the preferable forum. See 3 17 Habeas L.R. 2254-3(b)(2); Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989). Petitioner was S 18 || convicted in Alameda County which is in this district. But the Board of Parole Hearings denial 19 || occurred at Calipatria State Prison, where petitioner is still incarcerated. That facility is in 20 || Imperial County, in the Southern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(d). 21 Consequently, the case is transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern 22 District of California. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a), 2241(d); Habeas L.R. 2254-3. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 Dated: June 14, 2023 25 26 JAMES TO 27 United St#tes District Judge 28