Kabede v. California Governors Parole Board Hearing Dept.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 WONDIYRAD KABEDE, 11 Case No. 21-05366 EJD (PR) Petitioner, v. 13 CA GOVERNOR’S PAROLE BOARD 14 HEARING DEP’T, et al., 15 Respondents. 16

17 18 Petitioner, a California prisoner, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging the denial of parole on January 9, 2020. Dkt. 20 No. 15 at 4, 25. On November 9, 2021, the Court dismissed the petition with leave to 21 amend, specifically with regards to the exhaustion of state judicial remedies. Dkt. No. 14. 22 Petitioner filed an amended petition. Dkt. No. 15. 23 Venue for a habeas action is proper in either the district of confinement or the 24 district of conviction. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). Federal courts in California traditionally have 25 chosen to hear petitions challenging a conviction or sentence in the district of conviction or 26 sentencing. See Habeas L.R. 2254-3(b)(1); Dannenberg v. Ingle, 31 F.Supp. 767, 768 27 (N.D. Cal. 1993); Laue v. Nelson, 279 F.Supp. 265, 266 (N.D. Cal. 1968). But if the 1 parole or time credits claims, the district of confinement is the preferable forum. See 2 Habeas L.R. 2254-3(b)(2); Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989). 3 Here, Petitioner is challenging the denial of parole. See supra at 1. Petitioner is 4 currently confined at the California Health Care Facility in San Joaquin County. Dkt. 15 at 5 1. San Joaquin County lies within the venue of the Eastern District of California. See 28 6 U.S.C. § 84(b). Therefore, venue properly lies in that district and not in this one. See 28 7 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Accordingly, this case is TRANSFERRED to the United States District g || Court for the Eastern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). 9 The Clerk shall terminate all pending motions and transfer the entire file to the 19 Eastern District of California. q (12 || Dated: _ April 72002 au 5 1 EDWARD J. DAVILA 3 United States District Judge

z 15 16

2 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27