The opinion
1
2
3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6 MICHAEL CLOYD, Case No. 19-cv-03119-SI
7 Petitioner,
8 y. ORDER OF TRANSFER
Re: Dkt. No. |
9 BURTON,
10 Respondent.
11 Petitioner, who was convicted in Alameda County Superior Court and now is incarcerated
12 || at the Deuel Vocational Institution in Tracy, has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28
13 || U.S.C. § 2254 to challenge the Board of Parole Hearings’ refusal to set a term of years for him on
14 || his 15-to-life plus three years prison sentence. The petition challenges the execution of his sentence.
3 15 || The prison at which petitioner is incarcerated is in San Joaquin County, within the venue of the
16 || Eastern District of California. Venue is proper in a habeas action in either the district of confinement
3 17 or the district of conviction, 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d); however, the district of confinement is the
18 || preferable forum to review the execution of a sentence. See Habeas L.R. 2254-3(a); Dunne v.
19 Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989). Because petitioner is confined in the Eastern District
20 || of California and challenging the execution of his sentence, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) and
21 Habeas L.R. 2254-3(b), and in the interests of justice, this action is TRANSFERRED to the United
22 || States District Court for the Eastern District of California. The clerk shall transfer this matter.
23 IT IS SO ORDERED.
24 || Dated: September 23, 2019
Sun Mle
26
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge
28