# (HC) Trevino v. Cisneros

> District Court, E.D. California · February 1, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10033256

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** February 1, 2022
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10033256

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7 ROBERT TREVINO, Case No. 21-cv-05534-EMC

8 Plaintiff,
ORDER OF DISMISSAL IN PART;
9 v. ORDER OF TRANSFER

10 THERESA CISNEROS,
11 Defendant.

12
13
14
15 Robert Trevino, an inmate currently housed at the Substance Abuse Treatment Facility in
16 Corcoran, California (“SATF”), filed this pro se action for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
17 U.S.C. § 2254. See Docket No. 1 (“Petition”).
18 The Petition challenges a 2012 disciplinary decision imposed at a prison within this
19 District. See Pet. at 3. However, Mr. Trevino states on the face of the Petition that he did not lose
20 any good-time credits as a result of the 2012 disciplinary decision. See id. at 2-3, 5. As this Court
21 has already explained, because “the only discipline imposed [as punishment for the 2012
22 disciplinary decision] was a SHU term,” “Mr. Trevino’s only potential recourse in federal court is
23 to file a section 1983 complaint.” Docket No. 34 at 2, 3, Trevino v. Beard, Case No. 3:15-cv-
24 04837-EMC (N.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2016) (“Beard”) (dismissing habeas petition); see also Pet. at 1
25 (conceding that the instant Petition challenges the same disciplinary decision as Beard, and that
26 Beard was dismissed because petitioner did not raise a cognizable claim).1 Because the challenge
27
1 to the 2012 disciplinary decision is not a cognizable habeas claim, Mr. Trevino’s claim
2 challenging the 2012 disciplinary decision is DISMISSED.
3 Mr. Trevino also appears to challenge the denial of parole. See Pet. at 8 (referring to a
4 Parole Board decision of Feb. 24, 2017). A petition which challenges a decision denying parole
5 is a challenge to the execution of a sentence. See United States v. Nicholas, 15 F.3d 1093 (9th Cir.
6 1994) (unpublished) (“[Prisoner] is clearly challenging the manner of execution of his sentence
7 because he argues that the Parole Commission erred in denying him parole.”); United States v.
8 Brewer, 37 F.3d 1506 (9th Cir. 1994) (unpublished) (“[Prisoner] clearly raises an issue concerning
9 the manner of execution of his sentence by challenging the Parole Commission's decision.”).
10 Thus, Mr. Trevino’s sole remaining claim goes to challenge the execution of his sentence and may
11 be brought as a habeas petition.
12 Venue is proper in a habeas action in either the district of confinement or the district of
13 conviction. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). However, the district of confinement is the preferable
14 forum to review the execution of a sentence. See Habeas L.R. 2254-3(a); Dunne v. Henman, 875
15 F.2d 244, 249 (9th Cir. 1989) (where a prisoner challenges the execution of his sentence, the
16 proper respondent is the custodian of the institution where the prisoner is currently held); Thomas
17 v. United States, 50 F.3d 16 (9th Cir. 1995) (unpublished) (“[Prisoner’s] parole claim, however,
18 challenged the manner of execution of his sentence and could only be considered by the district
19 court with jurisdiction over [prisoner’s] custodian.”). Mr. Trevino is incarcerated at SATF, an
20 institution in Kings County, which lies within the venue of the Eastern District of California.
21 Because Mr. Trevino is confined in the Eastern District of California and challenging the
22 execution of his sentence, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) and Habeas L.R. 2254-3(b), and in the
23 interests of justice, this action is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the
24 ///
25 ///
26
District); see also Docket No. 112, Trevino v. Dotson, Case No. 15-5373-PJH (N.D. Cal. Oct. 6,
27
2017) (granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment without prejudice, because plaintiff
1 Eastern District of California. This Court takes no position on whether Mr. Trevino’s parole claim
2 is cognizable or timely.
3 The Clerk shall transfer this matter forthwith.
4
5 IT IS SO ORDERED.
6
7 Dated: February 1, 2022
8
9 ______________________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
10 United States District Judge
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10033256. Public record. Not legal advice.