# Johnson v. Cisneros

> District Court, N.D. California · January 21, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10070214

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, N.D. California
- **Decided:** January 21, 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/10070214

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7 PAUL JOHNSON, Case No. 21-cv-08882-YGR (PR)

8 Petitioner, ORDER OF TRANSFER

v.
9

10 T. CISNEROS, Warden,
Respondent.
11

12 This case was opened when petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition
13 for a writ of habeas corpus challenging, among other claims, the Board of Parole Hearing’s most
14 recent decision on finding him unsuitable for parole and the Board’s January 7, 2021 ruling. Dkt.
15 1. However, it is not clear whether petitioner intends to file a civil rights action or a habeas action.
16 In his petition form, under the “Grounds for Relief” section, aside from petitioner’s
17 aforementioned challenge to his sentence, he also complains of alleged constitutional violations by
18 the prison staff at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Center (“CSATF”), where he is
19 currently incarcerated. Id. at 5-6.
20 If this is a habeas case, it may be filed in either the district of confinement or the district of
21 conviction. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). The district court where the petition is filed, however, may
22 transfer the petition to the other district in the furtherance of justice. See id. Federal courts in
23 California traditionally have chosen to hear petitions challenging a conviction or sentence in the
24 district of conviction. See Dannenberg v. Ingle, 831 F. Supp. 767, 767 (N.D. Cal. 1993); Laue v.
25 Nelson, 279 F. Supp. 265, 266 (N.D. Cal. 1968). But if a habeas petition is directed to the manner
26 in which a sentence is being executed, e.g., if it involves parole or time credit claims, the district
27 of confinement is the preferable forum. See Habeas L.R. 2254-3(a); Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d
1 district of confinement is the proper forum. Petitioner is incarcerated at CSATF in Kings County,
2 || which is located in the Eastern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 84.
3 If this action is a civil rights case, the proper venue also would also be in the Eastern
4 || District, where the putative defendants would be found and where the claims arose. See 28 U.S.C.
5 § 1391(b). The Court need not decide whether this action should be treated as a habeas case or a
6 || civil rights case, because either way the preferable venue is in the Eastern District.
7 Accordingly, in the interest of justice and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), this action is
8 TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. The
9 Clerk of the Court shall transfer the case forthwith.
10 IT IS SO ORDERED.
11 Dated: January 21, 2022
12

J¥Q)GE YVONNE GON (xd, EZ, ROGERS
ited States District Judge

16

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10070214. Public record. Not legal advice.